We carried out a review of the data available to us about College View on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about College View, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• The service had a robust visiting policy in place, ensuring any visitors entering the service had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and received a lateral flow coronavirus test prior to entry.
• Staff were wearing PPE in line with government guidance and designated areas were set up around the service for staff to remove and put on PPE.
• The service communicated with relatives to promote people's wellbeing. People were supported to join in activities to maintain their wellbeing.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
College View provides support for up to 12 older people in one adapted building. Nine people were receiving a service at the time of this inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We received very positive views from people about the support provided to them. People said they felt safe and staff were respectful.
Staff had positive links with health care professionals, which promoted people’s wellbeing.
Care and support were tailored to each person's needs and preferences. People and their relatives were fully involved in developing and updating their planned care.
Staff had received training and support to enable them to carry out their role. Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work in the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interest; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The registered manager led by example to ensure people received a good service. People and staff told us the management team were approachable and listened to them when they had any concerns. All feedback was used to make continuous improvements to the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 31 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
College View is registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to provide accommodation for up to twelve people who may be living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over two floors. There is a secure garden at the rear of the service and a car park for visitors to use.
The service had a registered manger in place, who is the registered provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff understood they had a duty to protect people from abuse and knew they must report concerns or potential abuse to the management team, local authority or to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This helped to protect people.
We observed that the staffing levels provided on the day of our inspection were adequate to meet people’s needs. Staff were aware of the risks to people’s health and wellbeing, they knew what action to take to minimise those risks.
Staff were provided with training in a variety of subjects to develop and maintain their skills. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals took place to help to monitor their performance.
People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored; people’s special dietary needs were catered for. Staff prompted and assisted people to eat and drink. People’s nutritional needs were met.
Staff supported people to make decisions for themselves, they reworded questions or information to help people, especially those living with dementia to enable them to understand what was being said. People chose how to spend their time. People were supported to make their own decisions about aspects of their daily lives. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when people lacked capacity and important decisions needed to be made.
Signage was in place to help people find their way to the toilets and bathrooms. People had their names and pictures on their bedroom door to help them find their room. The communal areas of the service were on the ground floor. General maintenance occurred and service contracts were in place to maintain equipment to ensure it remained safe for staff to use.
A complaints procedure was in place. People’s views were asked for informally by staff and through the use of questionnaires. Feedback received was acted upon to ensure people remained satisfied with the service.
A variety of audits were undertaken to monitor the quality of service provided. This helped to maintain or improve the service provided to people.
This inspection was undertaken on 01 October 2015, and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 9 April 2014 the service was compliant with the regulations that we looked at.
College View is registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to provide accommodation for up to twelve people who may be living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over two floors. There is a secure garden at the rear of the service and a car park for visitors to use.
The registered provider is the registered manager for this service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff understood they had a duty to protect people from abuse and knew they must report concerns or potential abuse to the management team, local authority or to the Care Quality Commission [CQC]. This helped to protect people.
We observed that the staffing levels provided on the day of our inspection were adequate to meet people’s needs. Staff were aware of the risks to people’s wellbeing and what action to take to minimise those risks. Staff had undertaken training in a variety of subjects to develop and maintain their skills, this was updated, as required.
People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored; their preferences and special dietary needs were known and were catered for. Staff encouraged and assisted people to eat and drink, where necessary. Advice from relevant health care professionals was sought to ensure that people’s nutritional needs were met.
Staff supported people to make decisions for themselves they reworded questions or information to help people living with dementia understand what was being said. People chose how to spend their time.
We found when inspecting people’s care records that there was no record of an incident where a person had been unwell and that medical advice had not been sought. During our inspection some fire doors were held open by inappropriate means and some storage of some cleaning chemicals and slug pellets had to be addressed. Window restrictors were not in use in two areas and a person required a bed rail bumper to be replaced. These issues were dealt with at the time of our inspection.
People who used the service were supported to make their own decisions about aspects of their daily lives. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when there were concerns people lacked capacity and important decisions needed to be made.
There was signage in place to help people find their way to the toilets and bathrooms. People had their names and pictures on their bedroom door to help people find their room. Staff helped to guide people to where they wished to go. The communal areas were located on the ground floor. General maintenance occurred and service contracts were in place to maintain equipment so it remained safe to use.
A complaints procedure was in place. This was explained to people living with dementia or to their relations so that they were informed. People’s views were asked for informally by staff and through surveys. Feedback received was acted upon to help people remain satisfied with the service they received.
The registered manager undertook a variety of audits to help them monitor the quality of the service. However, the issues we found at the time of our inspection had not been identified by this process.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with the staff and looking at records.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
We found the service was safe because people were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
We saw that medicines were stored safely. People were given their medicines as prescribed. The records about the management of medicines showed that medicines were handled safely.
College View is a care home for older people in Grimsby with good access to local transport and amenities. The home is registered to accommodate 12 people and at the time of our inspection the maximum number of people were living at the home. During our visit we spoke with seven people who used the service and four relatives.
We saw good leadership at all levels. At the time of our visit the service had a registered manager in place who was also the provider. The registered manager was supported by an operational manager who had previously been a senior care worker. The registered manager actively promoted an open, honest and inclusive atmosphere.
The home provides care and support to older people, two of whom had a formal diagnosis of dementia. The home is located in a residential area with parking to the front of the property. Accommodation is on two floors and there is a passenger lift.
Mental capacity statements and best interest assessments were in place where required, for people who were unable to make decisions for themselves.
Each person’s care plan had a personal profile which described their personal preferences in relation to religion, food, drink, and daily routines. We saw this had been reviewed monthly. This allowed staff to pick up on changes in people’s behaviours which may indicate anxiety, pain or distress.
The care plans we reviewed showed people’s individual health care needs were addressed.
During our inspection on 17 September 2013 the provider was failing to ensure people who used the service received their medicines safely. It was judged that this had a minor impact on the people who used the service. A pharmacist inspector from the Care Quality Commission revisited the service on 13 January 2014 to check whether improvements had been made and maintained. We found that people were still not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
A number of detailed care plans had been developed covering subjects including communication, medication, tissue viability and continence care. It was evident that care plans and risk assessments were assessed and updated on a monthly basis.
We looked at medication records and the administration of medication. We found there were some concerns about medicines or the records relating to medicines.
We looked at a number of staff rotas and saw that staffing levels within the home had not increased since our last inspection in June 2013. Staffing levels have not increased to reflect the higher number of people who now use the service.
Staff received appropriate training and professional development as they commenced employment with the home. We saw that a comprehensive induction programme mapped the development of new starters.
The provider had an extensive audit schedule for 2013. Audits were completed for care plans, activities, staff supervision, medication, complaints and organisational policies. We saw evidence that when shortfalls had been identified and action plans had been produced to address underperformance.
People we spoke with said they felt safe in the service. Relatives said they felt people were safe from the risk of abuse. One relative told us, 'There are no safeguarding issues.' Another relative said, 'I think safeguarding is well taken care of. You don't hear anybody shout. They handle the people very well.'
People who used the service spoke with us positively about the staff that worked in College View. One person said, 'The staff are supported, yes. The staff are all right.' We also spoke with relatives about the staff. One relative told us, 'The staff all get on and they just do the job.' Another relative said, 'A lot of the staff have worked here for a long time. A couple of staff are on apprenticeship. Without exception they are all caring staff and very friendly. You can ask any of them anything at any point.'
We spoke with people who used the service about how they would progress any concerns they had with the provider. People explained that they were listened to and their concerns were acted on. One person told us, 'I would go to the residents' and relatives' meeting if I was asked. I have not completed any questionnaires. I have no complaints I am quite happy being here.'
People told us at our inspections and more recently through surveys and meetings with the provider that they were happy with the care they were receiving, their privacy and dignity was respected and that staff supported them in the way they wanted. They considered the staff were very friendly and helpful.
They told us that they were happy with the environment and the home was kept very clean and tidy.
They said they were generally very happy with the meals but some felt the menu choices could be changed more frequently.
People said they knew who to talk to if they had any concerns, they were consulted about how the home was run and felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment.