You are here

Goyt Valley House Care Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 January 2014
Date of Publication: 13 February 2014
Inspection Report published 13 February 2014 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 24 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

We found that there was an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. The manager told us that themed audits were undertaken by external managers. We saw a copy of a recent medication audit which identified no concerns. In addition to this we saw a number of internal audits to assess and monitor the quality of the service which included; medication, infection control and health and safety audits. Outcomes of the health and safety audit were recorded on the provider’s service improvement development plan. This demonstrated that the provider monitored the quality of service provided and took action and learnt from outcomes of the audits.

There were systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. We saw copies of risk assessments that included a fire risk assessment and health and safety risk assessment. This meant that risks to people were minimised.

There was evidence that learning from incidents / investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. We saw records of incidents and action taken. For example where people had suffered falls referrals were made to the falls team and occupational therapist. This meant that action was taken to ensure people’s safety.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. We saw comments and compliments books were in place. Comments recorded included, “Excellent care was provided” and “Staff are wonderful, professional, caring and friendly, nothing is too much trouble.” People we spoke with told us they would speak to the manager or staff if they had a complaint but they did not have any complaints at the time of our visit.

The provider sought the views of people who used the service through day to day communication and through regular residents meetings. A person we spoke with told us that they had residents meetings and that the activities co-ordinator asks their views about activities through a questionnaire.

The manager told us that staff received supervision every three months. However, staff could request supervision at any time. This was confirmed by staff we spoke with. Staff meetings took place every three months. We saw copies of meeting minutes which showed that a variety of subjects were discussed. This showed that the provider also sought the views of staff.