Archived: Girtrell Court

The home had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During our visit the manager explained to us that the home was due to close in November 2016. The manager explained that the staff team had been supplemented with the use of agency staff and this has been increasing due to the upcoming closure. A number of the agency staff had been working at Girtrell Court long term.

The building was in need of refurbishment and redecoration and had a clinical rather than homely feel to it. The environment of the building was clean. We found that one area of the kitchen needed cleaning and that kitchen cleaning records for nine days were missing. Checks on different aspects of health and safety and the servicing of equipment used by people and their staff were ongoing and up to date.

There was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere at Girtrell Court. People and their families told us they felt safe staying at Girtrell Court. We saw that appropriate risk assessments were in place and people had been supported with any health needs they had. Medication was administered safely. Staff had the appropriate training to ensure people were cared for in a safe manner.

People typically arrived to stay at the home on a Friday. On this day extra staff had been scheduled to work in order to gather relevant and up to date information about people’s medication and support needs. People’s care plans were reviewed at the start of each stay. We saw that the care plans were individualised and recorded people’s likes and preferences.

People told us they enjoyed the food provided and requested alternatives to the planned menu were made if the food was available. People’s dietary requirements were documented and catered for.

Staff told us they felt supported and were comfortable approaching the manager. Staff meetings had been held and supervision and staff awareness sessions had been held with the manager to keep staff up to date.

The manager kept records of accidents and incidents and had made the relevant referrals to health and social care professionals to ensure people were safe and well cared for.

When we visited there were only five people currently resident long term at the service and some people were using the respite service and five people visited the home for day care between 11am and 2pm. People said that they liked going to the home and that the food was good.

We saw that people consented to their care and day to day activities themselves and that others who helped make decisions in the service users’ best interests had lasting power of attorney or had been appointed to do so by a court of law.

We saw that staff knew the people using the service very well, which was particularly important when most people had communication difficulties. Staff described how different individuals showed if they were happy and content or what they did when they were in pain or unhappy.

We looked at staffing rotas and saw how staff numbers were calculated with regard to the needs of individual people using the service on a daily basis. We looked at policy and procedure documents and at the staff training matrix.

We talked to staff about, and saw records of complaints and how they were investigated and responded to.

“It’s alright here”, “Really good”, “They are great and look after me well”.

They told us they were involved in deciding their care and treatment and were able to make choices in every day living activities such as what time to get up, assistance needed with personal care, meals and going out to day centres or shopping trips. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and attend day-care centres where appropriate.

We saw that people were well cared for and treated with dignity and respect. People’s needs were assessed, planned and reviewed. We found that the provider monitored the service and gained views on the service from staff and people who used the service.