9th September 2015
During a routine inspection
We inspected Green Gables residential home on the 9th September 2015.
This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting.
Green Gables is a two storey building with 11 beds. It is situated on the outskirts of Bradford, with good transport links to Bradford and Brighouse areas. It is a care home without nursing which provides care for people with dementia and physical disabilities for adults over 65 years. On the day of our visit there were 10 people living in the home.
There was a registered manager in place .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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There were safeguards in place to help protect the people who lived there. People were able to make choices about the way in which they were cared for and the staff listened to them and knew their needs well. The staff had the training and support they needed. Relatives of people living at the home were happy with the service.
The care staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s care needs, significant people and events in their lives, and their daily routines and preferences. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. People who used the service were supported by staff that people told us were caring and respectful of their privacy.
Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home.
People’s medicines were administered in a safe way. The procedures to manage risks associated with the administration of medicines were followed by staff working at the service.
People received their medicines in line with their prescription. Other people had their medicines administered by a member of staff. We found medication administration records were signed correctly. There were suitable arrangements for the safe storage, management and disposal of medicines.
People had ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medicine. These medicines had a protocol sheet advising staff when these could be administered.
Care records were person centred and reviewed monthly as a minimum or when someone’s needs had changed. People told us they had been involved in creating their own care records and they told us staff had a good knowledge about them. Care plans included people’s personal preferences, likes and dislikes. People and their families had signed to say they supported the care records.
People who needed assistance with meal preparation were supported and encouraged to make choices about what they ate and drank.
We spent time observing care and support being given. Staff were seen to treat people with respect and dignity. Staff had developed relationships with people so they appeared comfortable, at ease and shared discussion and laughter with staff. We saw staff asked people what they wanted to do before they did it. If people refused their decision was respected
Staff spoke positively about the culture and management of the service. Staff said that they enjoyed their jobs and described management as very supportive. Staff confirmed they were able to raise issues and make suggestions about the way the service was provided in one-to-ones and staff meetings and these were taken seriously and discussed.
The registered manager provided good leadership and people using the service, healthcare professionals, relatives and staff told us the registered manager promoted high standards of care.
There was evidence that the staff and registered manager at the home had been involved in reviewing and monitoring the quality of the service to make sure it improved.
We looked at the complaints procedure for the service. Complaints were recorded, analysed, responded to and learnt from.
CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and reports on what we find. DoLS are a code of practice to supplement the main Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager had knowledge of the MCA 2005 and DoLs legislation and referrals for a DoLS authorisation had been made so that people’s rights would be protected.
There was a system in place to monitor the quality of the service and action had been taken when necessary to make any improvements.