You are here

Archived: Greenhills Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The inspection took place on 25 March 2016 and was unannounced. Greenhill’s provides care and accommodation for up to nine people with learning disabilities. On the day we visited, seven people were living in the service. Emcompass (Dorset) owns this service and has other services in the Dorset area.

The service had a registered manager. 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 met and spoke to all seven people during our visit. People were not able to fully verbalise their views and used other methods of communication, for example pictures and sign language. We therefore spent time observing people.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely. Staff had completed appropriate training and understood the importance of safe administration and management of medicines. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as speech and language therapists.

People’s records were personalised to meet people’s individual needs. Staff understood people’s needs and responded when needed. People were not able to be fully involved with their care plans, therefore others including family members supported staff to complete and review the care plans. People’s preferences were sought and respected.

People’s risks were recorded, monitored and managed well to ensure they stayed safe. People lived full and active lives and were supported to access local areas and activities. Activities reflected people’s interests and individual hobbies. People were given the choice of meals, snacks and drinks they enjoyed while maintaining a healthy diet. People had support preparing some meals and drinks.

Staff understood their role with regards to ensuring people’s human and legal rights were respected. For example, the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood by the staff. They knew how to make sure people, who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, had their legal rights protected and worked with others in their best interest. People’s safety and liberty were promoted.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns. Staff described what action they would take to protect people against harm and were confident any incidents or allegations would be acted upon.

Staff described the registered manager as being very approachable and supportive. Staff spoke positively about their jobs and their roles.

People who required it had additional staffing. Staff confirmed there were sufficient staff to meet these requirements. Staff had completed training and had the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. New staff received a comprehensive induction programme when they started working for Encompass. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures.

All significant events and incidents were documented and analysed. Evaluation of incidents was used to help make improvements and keep people safe. Improvements helped to ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the staff. Feedback to assess the quality of the service provided was sought from people living in the home, professionals and staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

This service was safe. People were supported by sufficient skilled and experienced staff.

Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report signs of abuse.

Risk had been identified and managed appropriately. Risk assessments had been completed to help staff protect people.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were managed safely and staff were aware of good practice.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The service was effective. People received individual one to one support from staff who had the knowledge and training to carry out their role.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood the requirements of the act which had been put into practice.

People could access health, social and medical support as needed.

People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet and the service used a range of communication methods.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with dignity and respect.

People were involved as much as possible in decisions about the support they received and their independence was respected and promoted. Staff were aware of people�s preferences.

People had formed positive caring relationships with the staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care.

Staff responded quickly and appropriately to people�s individual needs.

People were supported to undertake activities and interests that were important to them. People made choices about their day to day lives.

There was a complaints procedure available for anybody to access.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 April 2016

The service was well led.

There was an experienced registered manager in post who was approachable.

Staff were supported by the registered manager. There was open communication within the staff team and staff felt comfortable raising and discussing any concerns with them.

There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.

People�s views on the service were sought and quality assurance systems ensured improvements were identified and addressed.