You are here

Archived: Highgrove Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 July 2015

We carried out this inspection on 8 June 2015 and it was an unannounced inspection. This means the provider did not know we were going to carry out the inspection. The last full inspection at Highgrove was in May 2013. We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2008. A follow up inspection was carried out in August 2013 and we found the home was fully compliant with the regulations inspected at that time.

Highgrove is a care home registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 67 people, who may have dementia care needs. The home was built in 2009, is purpose built and provides all single bedrooms with en-suite facilities. On the day of our inspection, there were 47 people living at the home.

It is a condition of registration with the Care Quality Commission that the home has a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run. The home had a new manager in post on the day of our inspection, who had sent their application to CQC to become the ‘registered manager’.

People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. Comments included; “I feel very safe here, thank you”, “[The service] always asks what I want to do and how I want to do it”, “The staff are brilliant, so patient and caring. They go the extra mile for you” and “I give feedback about [the home]. If I don’t like something, then I say. It’s no bother to [staff], they just sort it if they can.”

People were protected from abuse and the service followed adequate and effective safeguarding procedures. Care records were personalised and contained relevant information for staff to provide person-centred care and support.

There were issues with staff support, where some staff had not received supervisions for a number of years. We also found some staff were out of date with training in several areas, including safeguarding and infection control. The home manager and regional manager told us they had training and supervision plans in place to ensure all staff were up to date with supervisions, appraisals and training. We saw evidence that training had already been planned in some areas and the home manager told us what they were doing to source other, required training programmes.

We found good practice in relation to decision making processes at the service, in line with the Mental Capacity code of practice, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

There were good, regular quality-monitoring systems carried out at the service. We saw that, where issues had been identified, the manager and regional manager had taken (or were taking) steps to address and resolve them.

During our inspection, we found one breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 July 2015

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm as the home ensured people understood what ‘being safe’ meant and had effective safeguarding procedures in place. Risks to individuals were managed to ensure that people had their freedom supported and respected.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff on each shift at the home and the home had carried out adequate pre-employment checks.

Medicines were managed well to ensure that people received them safely and in the way they liked.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 22 July 2015

The service was not effective.

Staff training, supervisions and appraisals were not up to date.

The home acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) guidelines and people had adequate mental capacity assessments in place.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. People also had access to relevant healthcare services for ongoing healthcare support, where required.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 July 2015

The service was caring.

Staff had developed positive, caring relationships with people who lived at the home.

People who lived at the home were supported to express their views and be actively involved in the service by staff who promoted and respected people’s privacy, choice and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 July 2015

The service was responsive.

People’s care was personalised and responsive to their needs, with care records containing details of people’s lives, preferences and personal history.

The home routinely listened to people’s experiences and responded well to any concerns or complaints made.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 July 2015

The service was well led.

The home promoted a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering.

Management was visible at all levels throughout the home, which helped in ensuring the service delivered high quality care. Managers carried out regular audits of the health, safety and care of people who lived at the home and the environment.