You are here

Archived: College Green Rest Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 October 2016

This inspection visit took place on 20 September 2016 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 18 June 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

College Green provides accommodation for 21 older people who have dementia. It has 15 single rooms and three double rooms, some with ensuite facilities. Respite care is provided subject to availability. College Green is a converted Victorian house with a front car park and a secluded rear garden. There is a passenger lift to bedrooms on the upper floors. The home is situated in a residential area of Crosby, opposite a park and close to bus routes, local shops and restaurants. At the time of our inspection visit there were 20 people who lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 looked at the recruitment of two recently appointed staff members. We found appropriate checks had been undertaken before they had commenced their employment confirming they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed a structured induction training and development programme was in place. Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support people who lived with dementia. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care.

We found the registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic when we visited. No offensive odours were observed by the inspectors. We spoke with four people who lived at the home who all said they were happy with the standard of hygiene at the home. One person said, “My room is lovely and clean.”

We found the environment offered dementia-friendly features to support people with visual, hearing and mobility impairments associated with dementia. The building was well lit and made as much use of natural light as possible. Clear signs (using pictures and words) had been put in place to enable people to move around the building confidently.

We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required. We saw staff members could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed. One person who lived at the home said, “Plenty of girls around to help me when I need them.”

We found equipment used by staff to support people had been maintained and serviced to ensure they were safe for use.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.

People who were able told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. One person we spoke with said, “Yes I enjoy all m

Inspection areas



Updated 12 October 2016

The service was safe.

The service had procedures in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care.

Staffing levels were sufficient with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. The deployment of staff was well managed providing people with support to meet their needs.

Recruitment procedures the service had in place were safe.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who lived at the home and staff. Written plans were in place to manage these risks. There were processes for recording accidents and incidents.

People were protected against the risks associated with unsafe use and management of medicines. This was because medicines were managed safely.



Updated 12 October 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were sufficiently skilled and experienced to support them to have a good quality of life.

People received a choice of suitable and nutritious meals and drinks in sufficient quantities to meet their needs.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). They had knowledge of the process to follow.



Updated 12 October 2016

The service was caring.

People were able to make decisions for themselves and be involved in planning their own care.

We observed people were supported by caring and attentive staff who showed patience and compassion to the people in their care.

Staff undertaking their daily duties were observed respecting people�s privacy and dignity.



Updated 12 October 2016

The service was responsive.

People participated in a range of activities which kept them entertained.

People�s care plans had been developed with them to identify what support they required and how they would like this to be provided.

People told us they knew their comments and complaints would be listened to and acted on effectively.



Updated 12 October 2016

The service was well led.

Systems and procedures were in place to monitor and assess the quality of service people received.

The registered manager had clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Staff understood their role and were committed to providing a good standard of support for people in their care.

A range of audits were in place to monitor the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home. Quality assurance was checked upon and action was taken to make improvements, where applicable.