You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

This inspection took place on 21 and 23 February 2017. It was an unannounced visit to the service. This meant the service did not know we were coming.

Greene house is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to fourteen people with epilepsy and other associated conditions. At the time of our inspection there were eleven people living in the home.

Greene house is a listed building. People’s bedrooms and communal areas are on the ground floor. The registered manager and administration offices are situated on the first floor.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The home was previously inspected in January 2016. At that inspection it received an overall “Requires Improvement” rating and recommendations were made to improve some areas of practice.

At this inspection we found the recommendations made at the previous inspection had been actioned and the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People and their relatives were happy with the care provided. A relative told us the home offered a personalised service. They commented “The keyworker knows how to motivate, encourage but also knows how to avoid behaviours that challenge”. People and their relatives described staff as kind, caring, friendly and tolerant. People were unhappy with the regular use of bank and agency staff but recognised that was necessary to maintain the required staffing levels.

Systems were in place to safeguard people. Risks to people were identified and managed which promoted people’s independence. People had care plans in place which provided clear guidance to staff on the support individuals required. Care plans were updated and reviewed as people’s needs changed.

Medicines were safely managed and people’s health and nutritional needs were met. People had access to activities of their choice.

People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. We observed staff were kind, caring and had a good knowledge of the people they were supporting. Staff were aware of people’s needs, risks and the support required to promote their safety.

Staff were suitably recruited, inducted, trained, supervised and supported. They were able to relate their training to their practice to support people effectively. The home had a number of staff on maternity leave and had staff vacancies. Staff worked well together as a team in an attempt to provide consistent care to people.

People and their relatives knew who to contact to raise a concern or complaint. Systems were in place to get feedback on the service. Resident meetings took place and annual surveys were sent to people who used the service, relatives, staff and professionals involved with the service. Actions were taken

The registered manager was new in role. They had worked with their senior team in implementing changes. They had introduced person centred reviews and was keen for those to be carried out for all people living at the home. They had a visible presence in the home, assisted on shift and supported staff in their day to day work.

People who used the service, relatives, staff and professionals were happy with the way the home was managed. They described the registered manager as kind, pleasant, focused, accessible and approachable.

Systems were in place to audit aspects of care and practice. The provider carried out quarterly monitoring visits of the service to satisfy themselves the service was being effectively managed and monitored.

People’s records and other records relating to health and safety and the running of the home were organised, accessible and well maintained which made access to the required infor

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded and risks were managed.

People’s medicines were appropriately managed.

People were supported by staff who were suitably recruited. The home had a high number of staff vacancies. Bank and agency staff were used to cover the vacancies which the provider recognised did not always provide continuity of care to people.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were inducted, trained and supervised in their roles.

People were supported and enabled to make decisions about their day to day care within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) was complied with.

People had access to health professionals and their nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring.

People’s privacy, dignity, independence and respect was upheld.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

People had care plans were in place which outlined the care they required to promote consistent care.

People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests and activities were organised and available.

People were provided with information on how to raise a concern or complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 March 2017

The service was well led.

People were supported by a service which had a cohesive management team who worked well together to benefit people and staff.

People were given the opportunity to feedback on the service. Systems were in place to monitor practices to safeguard people and make improvements to the service.

People’s records and other records required for the running of the service were well organised and suitably maintained.