All inspections: Granby Rose SDU - Care Quality Commission

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 October 2014. Granby Rose SFU provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 25 people living with dementia who have residential or nursing care needs. There were 23 people living at the home when we visited.

During the visit we spoke with the 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 also spoke with fourteen members of staff including, registered nurses, care staff, activities organiser and kitchen staff. We also spoke with staff attending the service to carry out quality assurance checks for the provider’s accredited dementia care scheme (PEARL). We also spoke to two visiting professionals.

The home met all the regulations we inspected during our last inspection which was carried out on 23 October 2014.

The service was safe. Staff recruitment procedures meant appropriate checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff had received training with regard to safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate they understood the action to take if they suspected abuse. Staff had received training to equip them for their role; this including mandatory health and safety training. We saw staff showed care, compassion and respect for people. The experiential training they received contributed towards this. The service provided meaningful activities and occupation which reflected people’s interests and choices. The relationships staff had developed with people helped them be imaginative in the way they engaged people in activities.

The service was well led. Staff people using the service and their relatives and representatives expressed confidence in the manager abilities to provide good quality care. The service was responsive to any comments or complaints they received in making the necessary improvements where shortfalls were identified and there were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service including talking to people who lived at the service, staff and observing the care provided. We spoke, four visiting relative and five members of staff

We found that where people lacked capacity their rights were respected and the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People had care plans and risk assessments in place which helped staff to understand and meet people's needs. We observed staff and people who use the service had positive relationships and staff had the knowledge and experience to meet people's needs. Comments we received from visiting relatives included; 'As far as staff are concerned, I can't praise them highly enough.' And 'The staff are amazing, and the care X receives I can't fault.'

The provider had clear systems in place for supporting people with medication and staff were trained in the safe handling of medicines

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place which meant that only suitable people who had had appropriate checks carried out worked for the service. All of the staff we spoke with told us the induction they received had been a good grounding in care work and relevant to their role.

There was an accessible complaints procedure available. Complaints were investigated and taken seriously and information from complaints was used to improve the service patients received.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. However through over observations we found that people were well supported and appeared content and at ease in their surroundings.

We spoke with the relatives of three people. All gave positive feedback, with comments including:

'The commitment of the staff is absolutely tremendous'

'I've never heard the staff use a cross word with anyone, they're all so lovely'

'It's like a huge big extended family' and

'(service user's name) is very happy here, and I'm kept involved with all the decisions about their care'

We spoke with staff who said Granby Rose was a lovely place to work, they told us there was very little turnover of staff and that they received good support and training to equip them to do their job.

We were unable to talk with some people living at Granby Rose. So we observed how they interacted with the staff to see what choices the staff enabled them to make and we talked to their relatives and friends who visited them.

Relatives told us they were very satisfied with the care and support people receive. They explained how people were encouraged to treat Granby Rose as their home, and how they had confidence in the staff, who they found were all approachable and always helpful. They said they "could not praise the staff enough." Two described the home as an" extended family", another explained how they felt their relative was "safe" and "well cared for".

All said they had been well informed and had taken part in the planning of their relatives care and consulted over their preferences. People were able to rise from and retire to bed when it suited them and move from the lounge to their rooms when they wanted. They were provided with a menu and had the opportunity to choose their meals, if they did not like the menu a further choice was offered.

All felt comfortable in making their views known and confident any concerns would be responded to promptly.

These older reports are from our old approaches to inspection, including those from before CQC was created.

Archived: Granby Rose SDU

All Inspections

23 October 2014

During a routine inspection

28 October 2013

During a routine inspection

15 August 2012

During a routine inspection

4 October 2011

During a routine inspection

Reports under our old system of regulation