You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

This inspection took place on 29 March and 10 April 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Gretton Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Gretton Court accommodates 37 people in one purpose built building. On the day of our inspection there were 37 people using the service. All of the people had nursing care needs and were living with dementia.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like 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.

Gretton Court was last inspected by CQC in January 2017 and was rated Requires improvement. At the inspection in January 2017 we identified the following breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance). Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of Safe, Responsive and Well-led to at least good. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in all the areas identified at the previous inspection and the service was now rated Good.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and investigated. Risk assessments were in place for people who used the service and described potential risks and the safeguards in place to mitigate these risks. The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received medicines as prescribed.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff. Staff were supported in their role via appropriate training and regular supervisions.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. People were supported with their health care needs and care records showed people were supported during visits to and from external health care specialists.

People who used the service and family members were complimentary about the standard of care at Gretton Court. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and support plans were written in a person-centred way. Person-centred is about ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support plans and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests, and to help meet their social needs. The service had good links with the local community.

People who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint. The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. People who used the service, family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was safe.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people who used the service and the provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and investigated, risk assessments were in place and staff had been trained in how to protect vulnerable adults.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service and people were supported with their dietary needs.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Caring

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect, and independence was promoted.

People were well presented and staff talked with people in a polite and respectful manner.

People were involved in their care and their wishes were taken into consideration.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Care records were up to date, regularly reviewed and person-centred.

The home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service.

The provider had an effective complaints policy and procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 June 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open and inclusive.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

The service had good links with the local community.