You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 July and 6 August 2014
Date of Publication: 29 October 2014
Inspection Report published 29 October 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 23 July and 6 August 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings in order to answer the following questions;

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We found the provider had in place effective systems to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. We saw people�s care was assessed and care plans were in place that included appropriate risk assessments.

We looked at the records and saw where necessary a referral for a mental capacity assessment and best interest�s decision was made, where required, for people who were unable to make decisions. Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is law that protects people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. The manager had a good understanding of the MCA and DoLS and was able to describe the process followed when a DoLS was applied for a person who used the service.

There were effective systems in place for the safe administration and management of people�s medicines. Records were up to date and corresponded with the stock of medicines held.

We saw the recruitment process was robust and staff records included evidence of appropriate references and Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks. This was to ensure staff were safe to work with people at the Grange and in their own homes.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in this process. We saw that particular care needs were identified in individual plans for example, dietary needs or dementia care.

Staff training is provided that takes account of the needs of the people in the home. For example, we saw training in dementia and administration of medicines had been provided.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff responded kindly and promptly to people. Care workers were patient and encouraging to people as they assisted them. One person told us, �It�s a really good place to live and I like the staff. They are very kind.� A person who had care provided in their own home said, �I get a good service and I always know who is coming to support me. The staff are all very good. I am happy with the service.� A relative told us, �X is really well cared for and the staff are marvellous.�

People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs were recorded and we saw staff were aware of these during the inspection. We noted people�s privacy was respected and people were afforded choices about where and how they spent their time.

Is the service responsive?

We saw evidence that the care staff identified changes in people�s needs and acted to make sure they received the care they needed. For example, there was evidence that care plans had been amended when a person returned from hospital and when someone had lost weight.

People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and were satisfied staff would respond to any concerns. Staff could describe how they would assist a person to make a complaint. We saw there were systems in place for dealing with and recording complaints.

We saw there was an activity programme planned each week. People told us they enjoyed the activities, particularly the music and the exercise class. People�s records identified particular interests or hobbies and we saw these were reflected in the programme.

We saw records of meetings for people who used the service. There was evidence people had opportunities to put forward their views about the service and had identified improvements in the gardens to suit their needs. People told us they were satisfied staff listened to and acted upon their views.

Is the service well led?

The staff we spoke to were all aware of the complaints, safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures. All of the staff we spoke with were able to describe the appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of someone raising an issue with them.

The service had a quality assurance system in place that included the use of surveys from people who used the service. This meant people were able to feed back on their experience and the service was able to learn from this. Audits of care records, medicines, health and safety, infection control and premises were carried out monthly and any shortfalls in the service were acted upon promptly.

Staff had regular supervision, appraisals and staff meetings which meant they were able to feedback to the management of the home their views and suggestions. Staff we spoke with confirmed their views were listened and account was taken of them. They said they felt well supported by the management of the home.