Archived: Cantley Grange

This comprehensive inspection took place on 11 January 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in November 2015, the service was rated Good, with a rating of Requires Improvement in our key question (domain) of Responsive. This was in relation to the activities available to people and how complaints were responded to.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Cantley Grange’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.’

We carried out the inspection a little earlier than planned due to concerns raised with us about the way the service was operating. However, we found no evidence to support the concerns and, without exception all the people we spoke with during the inspection were very happy with the service provided. We also found the areas we identified for improvement at our last inspection had been addressed. At this inspection we rated the service as Good in all domains.

Why the service is rated Good.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 provider continued to protect people from abuse and people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and their choices were respected. Care plans included information about people’s life experiences, likes and dislikes. Risk assessments highlighted any risks associated with their care and how best to manage the risks presented.

There were enough staff to ensure people’s needs were met and staff training was of a good standard and assisted them to carry out their role effectively.

People continued to receive their medicines in a safe manner and received good healthcare support. People received a nutritious and balanced diet and told us that their dietary needs and choices were particularly well catered for.

It was clear that people had good relationships with the staff, who were caring and kind. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

The registered provider had made sure that people were aware of the complaints procedure and any concerns or and complaints were taken seriously, responded to positively and used to improve the service.

We saw that the registered provider continued to effectively monitor and audit the quality and safety of the service. People who used the service and their relatives were involved in the development of the home and were able to contribute ideas.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with five people using the service, three relatives, and the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were involved (where possible) in any decisions that affected their care and treatment. Where people were not able to make informed decisions, best interest meetings were held which involved a relative, social worker and the persons GP.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People who used the service told us the staff were very kind. Relatives told us that they felt their relative was safe. One relative said, 'I know my relative is in good hands.'

We saw there were enough staff available to meet people's need. We spoke with people who used the service and they told us that they did not have to wait long if they required assistance.

Is the service effective?

The home had systems in place to ensure people's wishes were respected. We saw completed 'This is me' documents which described people's likes, dislikes and wishes. This also gave staff an insight into the person's life history which helped them understand their needs.

One person we spoke with told us that they liked to stay in their room, only coming down to communal areas for meals. They told us staff respected their wishes. The person's relative told us they had looked at several homes before choosing Cantley Grange for their relative.

Is the service caring?

The manager had ensured that staff had a good understanding of people's needs as they had completed training on person centred care for people living with dementia. This helped them to understand people's needs.

People living with dementia had their physical, psychological and emotional needs regularly assessed and addressed, including nutrition, hydration, pain relief, personal hygiene and anxiety.

People told us that staff responded quickly to alerts from people using their buzzers. One person said, 'When I call for assistance staff respond as soon as they can.'

Is the service responsive?

We saw that care plans were reviewed regularly and any changes were made to ensure people's needs were met. For example we noted that people who were assessed as being at risk of falls were referred to the falls clinic. The senior staff showed us evidence where people were provided with pressure mats that alerted staff when particular people get out of bed. The deputy manager showed us an accident analysis that confirmed their introduction had reduced the number of falls taking place in people's bedrooms.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had been in post for a number of years and relatives told us they had confidence in her ability to deliver good care. One relative said, 'I feel confident in the manager, she always makes time to discuss any concerns we may have.'

We saw that audits had been completed and where actions had been identified these were addressed.

People who used the service and their representatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. We spoke with people who used the service and they told us that they were asked their opinion in how the service was run. We spoke with the deputy manager who told us a quality assurance questionnaire was sent out by the company's head office on an annual basis.

We spoke with the relatives of seven people using the service. They told us they were happy with the care provided. They said they were kept informed about any changes to their relative's care and treatment. Relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt their concerns were acted on swiftly. They told us they were able to attend meeting to discuss any concerns about the service. We also spoke with two visiting health professionals about their working relationship with the home.

People we spoke with told us that staff were kind and always treated them with respect. One person said 'I like living here I can have my meals in my room which I like. Another person told us they could make decisions about how their care was delivered.

We found medication was administered safely to people. People were given appropriate support where required, to ensure they had taken their medication.

Staff received appropriate support and training to ensure they were able to meet the needs of people living at the home.

We found the environment was clean and equipment was maintained and fit for purpose.

The home regularly audited records and gained the views of people who used the service by completing satisfaction surveys.

We also used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. This included observing care, looking at records and talking to staff.

We spoke with the relatives of three people using the service. They told us they were happy with the care provided. They said they were kept informed about any changes to their relatives care and treatment. Relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt their concerns were acted on swiftly.

People we spoke with told us that staff were kind and always treated them with respect. One person said 'I like living here I have two very good friends and we spend time together.' Another person told us they chose not to be involved in the activities at the home, as they liked to stay in their bedroom.

We found medication was administered safely to people. People were given appropriate support where required, to ensure they had taken their medication.

Staff received appropriate support and training to ensure they were able to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.