You are here

Archived: Godfrey Olsen House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

We inspected Godfrey Olsen House on 12 October 2015. The visit was unannounced. Godfrey Olsen House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a range of physical impairments and learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were six people using the service.

The service had recently appointed a new manager who was not yet registered. 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. There was also a team leader in post, as well as 13 other staff members.

People were well cared for and there were enough staff to support them effectively. The staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of the people and knew how to spot signs of abuse. People said they felt safe and supported by the care staff and provider. Processes were in place to check the staff they employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people and medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People felt involved and listened to. They contributed to what was written their care records and risk assessments. These were kept up to date and were an accurate reflection of the person’s care and support needs. The care plans included the person’s likes and preferences and were reviewed regularly to reflect changes to the person’s needs. People had access to healthcare services and were referred to doctors when needed.

The recruitment process records showed all necessary pre-employment checks had been completed. Staff received appropriate training and were supported through the use of one to one supervision and appraisal. All staff received a full induction which included essential training and appropriate checks had been completed prior to them commencing work. The service was supporting all staff to attend further training which would support their role.

People said the manager and staff were caring and felt they could go to them about anything and actions would be taken. Staff spoke to people in a kind, respectful and caring manner. There was an open, trusting relationship between them, which showed that the staff and provider knew the people well. Staff supported people as much as the person wanted them to whilst encouraging them to maintain their independence. Staff were offering people choices and respecting their decisions appropriately. People and their relatives were positive about the service they received. They praised the staff and care provided.

Staff felt they worked well as a team, and the manager provided support and guidance as they needed it. There was an open and transparent culture which was promoted amongst the staff. This allowed them to learn from incidents and changes were made to the service following feedback from people, their relatives and staff.

People and their relatives were able to complain or raise issues on an informal basis with the registered manager and were confident these would be resolved. The manager demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of effective quality assurance systems. There was a process in place to monitor quality and to understand the experiences of the people who used the service. There was regular contact between the provider, manager, people, relatives and the staff.


Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s health and well-being were managed effectively.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruiting practices ensured that all appropriate checks had been completed.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was effective.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care, and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

Staff completed training appropriate to their role and were supported through supervisions.

Both management and care staff

understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People‘s nutritional needs were met.

They had access to health professionals and other specialists if they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was caring.

People and staff had a positive relationship. People’s privacy was protected, their dignity respected and they were supported to maintain their independence.

People experienced care that was caring and compassionate

Staff treated people as individuals.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were reviewed regularly. Care plans reflected the individual’s needs and how these should be met. Their choices and preferences were respected.

People knew how to complain and said they would raise issues if the need arose. Complaints had been responded to appropriately and in a timely manner.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was well-led.

People and staff reported that the service was well run and was open about the decisions and actions taken.

Quality audits were in place to monitor and ensure the on-going quality and safety of the service.