You are here

Archived: Granby at Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

The inspection was carried out on 1 and 2 February 2016. This inspection was announced as we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available.

At our last inspection on 26 November 2013 the provider was meeting the regulations that were assessed.

Granby at Home provides care and support to people who live in their own homes in the Harrogate area and in the assisted living service Granby Gardens. The agency’s office is situated in Granby Gardens. The service is registered to provide the regulated activity personal care. The agency is part of the Brighterkind group.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.’

The feedback we received from people who used the service was very positive. We received no negative comments. People told us they had confidence in the staff and they felt safe in the way staff supported them.

Any risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to reduce those risks whilst maintaining people’s independence. Risks were assessed in relation to staff safely carrying out their roles. All risk assessments were reviewed regularly to make sure they continued to be appropriate. Any accidents and incidents were reported and there were systems in place to support staff should an emergency occur.

Appropriate checks were made as part of the service’s recruitment process. These checks were undertaken to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who used the service. The service provided a training programme for staff to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to support people. This included a comprehensive induction and training at the beginning of their employment, and all mandatory health and safety training.

We saw systems were in place to provide staff support. Staff participated in staff meetings, and one to one supervision meetings with their supervisor and completed an annual appraisal. The agency had a whistleblowing policy, which was available to staff. Staff told us they would feel confident using it and that the appropriate action would be taken.

Policies and procedures were in place covering the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which aims to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment. Staff had received training in this subject.

Where people needed assistance taking their medicine this was administered by staff that had been trained to carry out this role. Staff liaised with healthcare professionals at the appropriate time to help monitor and maintain people’s health and wellbeing.

People told us they were included in discussions about how their support was provided. They told us they were introduced to staff prior to them providing support and described staff from the agency as kind and considerate. People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect.

People’s care plans were detailed and reflected individual choice. The registered manager reviewed people’s care packages with them regularly to ensure people’s care needs were met and this was recorded, up to date and accurate. Staff told us they felt well informed about people’s needs and how to meet them.

People said they were confident in raising concerns. Each person was given a copy of the agency’s complaints procedures.

The provider had systems in place to enable people to share their opin

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was safe.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognise abuse, and what to do to protect people if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Where risks to individuals were identified, specific plans were in place to minimise any adverse effects from these.

There were safe systems in place for supporting people with their medication. The agency had a medication policy and staff received training which included a practical test to demonstrate competency.

Staff had been recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

Is the service effective?

The service was effective.

People received effective care and support that met their individual needs and preferences from staff who were well trained and knowledgeable.

Staff received support from more senior staff and through supervision.

The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

People were able to access healthcare professionals when this was needed

Where staff were required to support people with meals and drinks training was provided specific to the individual person who used the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was caring.

The registered manager and staff were committed to providing a caring and compassionate service. This was reflected in their day-to-day practices. Discussions with staff showed a genuine interest and a very caring attitude towards the people they supported.

Staff were very knowledgeable regarding people�s needs, preferences and personal histories.

People were very pleased with the consistency of the staff team and they valued the care, support and companionship offered to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was responsive.

People had a plan of care and where changes to people�s support was needed or requested these were made promptly.

People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

People using the service and other professionals involved were given opportunities to provide feedback on the service. This enabled the provider to address any shortfalls or concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 March 2016

The service was well led.

Quality assurance systems were used to keep checks on standards and develop the service. This enabled the provider to monitor the quality of the service closely, and make improvements when needed.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them. They felt well supported by the management team who they said were accessible and approachable.