You are here

Archived: Grey Ferrers Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The inspection took place on 8 and 9 December 2015 and was unannounced.

Grey Ferrers Nursing Home has four separate units. Brandon Unit provides low level dementia/mental health care and care for those with a physical disability. Stewards Hay which provides medium level dementia/mental health care and care for those with medium physical disabilities, Woodville provides high level dementia/ mental health care, and Bradgate Unit which provides end of life care. All four units provide both residential and nursing care. The location is registered to provide care for up to 120 people with dementia and physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 83 people using the service.

Grey Ferrers Nursing Home has a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us that they felt safe at the service, and were happy living there. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people and protect them from abuse. Staff were confident about what action they would take if they had any concerns, this would include reporting concerns to the unit manager or the registered manager. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy and felt confident to use it.

People were protected by safe staff recruitment procedures. Staff had received training which reflected the needs of the people living at the service and enabled them to provide support in a safe manner. This included supporting people with specific health related conditions and the appropriate use of equipment to move people safely.

We saw that people received their medication in a timely and safe manner, administered by staff who were trained in the administration of medication. People’s needs had been risk assessed to promote their safety. We saw there were sufficient staff to support people’s individual needs.

People told us that the food had recently improved as there was a new chef. People were offered choices with food and drinks and appropriate support was given when needed. There were drinks and snacks available between meals. We were informed that the nutritional risk screening tool and food record charts were not being completed correctly. This meant that people living at the service who are at risk of poor nutrition may not be being supported appropriately in order to meet their nutritional needs.

People were protected under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that appropriate referrals had been made where people were thought to not have capacity to make certain decisions and had restrictions placed upon them.

We found conflicting information in people’s mental capacity assessments. We saw that in some instances documentation stated that a person living at the service lacked capacity but further documentation stated the same person had capacity. There were no decision specific mental capacity assessments in people’s plans of care. This meant there was a possible risk that people’s human and legal rights were not being respected.

People’s health and welfare was promoted and they were referred to relevant healthcare professionals in a timely manner to meet their health needs.

People’s plans of care were personalised and accurately reflected people’s care and support needs, the plans of care included information about people’s life histories, interests and likes and dislikes which provided staff with sufficient information to enable them to provide care effectively.

People told us they were happy with the care they received and were complimentary about the staff. The service had an atmosphere which was warm, friendly and supportive. We saw staff positively engaging with people living at the service and treating pe

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse because staff had a good awareness of abuse and how to report concerns.

People were protected by safe staff recruitment procedures. There were sufficient staff available to meet people�s assessed needs and ensure their safety.

Risks to people had been appropriately assessed. Measures were in place to ensure staff supported people safely.

Medicines were administered in accordance with best practice. There were protocols in place where covert medicines were given.

People received their medication as prescribed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

Staff received appropriate training to enable them to provide the care and support people required. There were appropriate induction procedures in place for new members of staff.

We found conflicting information in people�s mental capacity assessments. There were no decision specific mental capacity assessments in people�s plans of care

People�s dietary requirements were met and their choices and preferences were taken into consideration. The nutritional risk screening tool and food record charts were not always being completed correctly.

Staff had a good understanding of people�s health care needs and referred them to health care professionals in a timely manner.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was caring.

The staff knew people well and there were positive relationships between the staff and people living at the service.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

People were encouraged to make choices and decisions for themselves.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was responsive.

Care was responsive to people�s individual needs and preferences.

Activities were available within the service to suit the individual needs of the people living at the service.

Staff responded to people�s needs in a considerate and timely manner.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was well led.

The registered manager provided staff with appropriate leadership and support, staff were complimentary about the support they received from the manager and the management team.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of care and to drive improvements within the service.

The provider�s management team and registered manager were clear about the aims of the service and worked collaboratively with people living at the service in order to improve and develop the service.