You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 February 2020

About the service

The Grove-2 is a residential care home providing personal care for up to seven adults living with a learning disability or autism. At the time of our inspection there were seven people using the service. People had their own bedrooms and shared communal areas such as the kitchen, bathrooms and the garden.

The service didn’t always apply the full range of principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. However, the location of the service sometimes limited people’s access to new activities or the community.

The service was part of a larger cluster of three services which were all located on the same site. The size of the service had some negative impact on people living there due to the service being located far away from local amenities and having limited access to public transport. The service was clearly a care home and there were identifying signs such as a large sign and industrial waste bins.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives were happy with the care they received. One person told us, ‘‘I love it here. The staff are like my friends and help me out with everything.’’

People were supported by a kind and compassionate staff team who had gotten to know them as individuals. Staff knew how to support people to maintain their independence and people were involved in all aspects of their care and support. People took part in activities both in and out of the service depending on their interests and preferences. 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 interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were safe living at the service. There were enough suitably trained staff to support people and they had training in how to recognise and report potential abuse. People were supported safely with their medicines. The service was kept clean and there were good infection control measures being followed.

People were supported to lead healthy lives and received support to see health professionals and follow a healthy and balanced diet. The premises were suitable and had been adapted to encourage and promote people’s involvement at the service. People had access to a complaint’s procedure. The house manager had supported people to put plans in place for the end of their life.

The house manager was managing the service well. However, the registered manager had little oversight of the service and had not kept up to date with current best practice guidance and legislation. Regular audits were completed to monitor the quality of the service. People, relatives and the staff team were engaged with the service and asked for feedback regularly. The house manager and staff team worked well with other organisations. The house manager and staff team had worked hard to make improvements at the service following our previous inspection.

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 requires improvement (published 17 January 2019).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the serv

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.