The inspection of Godfrey Robinson took place on 2 and 22 October 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 15 January 2014 the service met all of the regulations we assessed.
Godfrey Robinson is a residential care home that provides accommodation and support to a maximum of 19 adults aged between 18 and 65 years, who have a physical disability. When people reach the age of 65 they can remain at the service if their assessment identifies that the service continues to meet their care and treatment needs. There were 19 people using the service at the time of our inspection. The service is situated in the village of North Ferriby in East Yorkshire and has bus and rail links to the cities of Kingston Upon Hull, Leeds and beyond.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection 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.
We found that people were approached by staff that were very kind and caring, and with a positive and progressive outlook on life. This encouraged people to be the same and to enjoy their lives to the full. We were given lots of examples where people had been enabled to lead the lives of their choosing, thus fulfilling their ambitions and aims, and staff had been extremely supportive and caring towards people in enabling them to do this. People spoke very highly of the care and support they received and one relative wrote to the organisation with a detailed and touching account of the care and compassion their relative received while in the care of staff at Godfrey Robinson. We found that people were treated as individuals and with the greatest respect by staff when they provided support, as this was always carried out in partnership with them and according to their expressed preferences.
People were able to speak up freely about the service of care they received and they contributed to the running of the service by making their wishes and views known on a daily basis to their key workers and by running and chairing the ‘resident’ meetings in rotation, so that they had full say in what happened in the service. People’s privacy and dignity was upheld extremely well at all times and they experienced a sense that the service was created and tailored by them; such was the enabling abilities of the staff. People’s personal details were kept confidential.
People that used the service had key workers to support them in doing that little bit extra, key workers who really got to know people well. There were person-centred plans of care in place, which addressed not only care and health needs, but also needs of achieving ambition and leading a fulfilling life. This area of support was seen by staff as very important in enabling people to experience the best possible things in life. People expressed their complete satisfaction with the very responsive service of care and support they received.
People were fully supported by receptive staff to begin and maintain relationships of their choice and were enabled to access advice on issues of importance in respect of those relationships.
We found that people engaged in activities, always of their choosing and on a regular basis so that they led busy and active lives. We saw that all difficult activities were realised by tenacious staff going that ‘extra mile’ to ensure people experienced the right kind of opportunity. These were always supported by detailed and very pertinent risk assessments.
People could complain with complete confidence that their issues would be satisfactorily addressed and in the knowledge that there would be no recriminations for speaking up; making suggestions or saying any aspect of their care wasn’t good enough. However, people stressed to us that they had absolutely no cause for complaint as the service was very good and all their needs were responded to extremely well.
People that used the service at Godfrey Robinson Care Home were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had ensured staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and there were systems in place to handle safeguarding referrals appropriately. Anti-discrimination and people’s rights were vigorously upheld by everyone that used and worked at the service. We found that staff and volunteers ‘lived’ the beliefs of the organisation in their support to people that used the service, with regard to people having freedom to live their lives the way they choose.
We found that people were safe because whistle blowing was appropriately addressed and investigated and staff understood their responsibilities to address concerns. All risks for people were identified and reduced by use of risk assessments carried out by people themselves and staff, as part of their general care planning and reviewing. Staff went to enormous lengths to ensure people were able to achieve their goals and ambitions and reduced risk greatly in the process.
We saw that staffing levels were in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs and that staff went ‘above and beyond’ in providing extra support after working hours, to ensure people received the care they required in times of difficulty or when in hospital and relatives were unable to be there. We saw that staff and volunteer recruitment practices followed the same safe policies and procedures. The management of medicines also followed safe policies, procedures and practices.
People were supported by competent and trained staff that showed a thirst for knowledge and were committed to their personal development and acquiring improved skills. Staff were inducted to their roles and were well supported by the manager who ensured staff were formally supervised and took part in an appraisal and reward system. All learning undertaken by staff was eagerly put into practice.
There were appropriate legislation safeguards in place for people that may not have had the capacity to make specific important decisions about their lives or the care and support they received and every effort was made to ensure people’s human rights were fully exercised.
We found that people’s nutrition and health care needs were met, because these had been assessed and planned for and staff were aware of the issues and support needs that people had. Staff looked for ways to provide people with the best possible nutrition, but of course respected their personal preferences, choices and decisions.
We saw that people experienced suitable premises that were adapted and fitted with specialist equipment to meet their needs. The plans in place to complete the refurbishment in operation at the time we visited promised to ensure the facilities for people would be of the most modern and appropriate for meeting the needs of people living with a physical disability. The registered manager sent pictures to us of an upgraded bathroom before we completed our inspection report and this showed that improvements were of a very high standard.
We found that people enjoyed the benefit of a service that followed a positive culture, because staff were well aware of the right thing to do in carrying out their responsibilities and genuinely enabled people to lead their own lives. The service was very well run and was regularly checked for quality with regard to the service delivery. Surveying of people’s satisfaction was all carried out externally to the organisation, while internal audits were overseen regionally. The registered manager was open, honest and inclusive and genuinely valued everyone’s views: people that used the service, relatives, staff and other healthcare professionals. People’s information details and all other records held in the service were securely held and kept confidential.