We carried out a review of the data available to us about Martin Grange on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Martin Grange, you can give feedback on this service.
Martin Grange is also the name of a domiciliary care service run by the provider Methodist Homes. They have offices at Martin Grange and provide care and support to some of the people who live there. The service also provides staff over a 24 hour period, to offer assistance in an emergency to anyone living on site.
The care provider Martin Grange is registered to provider personal care to older people, younger adults and people who may be living with dementia, a mental health condition, a physical disability, sensory impairment, a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection, they supported ten older people who were living at Martin Grange with personal care at prearranged times.
As people owned or privately rented their accommodation, the care provider was not responsible for the upkeep or the maintenance of the building or people’s own flats. As such, the accommodation provided was not within the Care Quality Commission’s remit to inspect.
We inspected the service on 9 August 2017. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection, because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location’s office when we visited.
At the last inspection, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection, we found the service remained 'Good'.
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. The manager in post at the time of our inspection completed their application, following our site visit, and became the registered manager in August 2017. We have referred to the registered manager as ‘manager’ throughout our inspection report.
During the inspection, we found people who used the service were safe. Risks were identified and assessed to ensure staff provided safe care. Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. Systems were in place to ensure people received their prescribed medicines.
Staff completed regular training and received on-going supervision and support from the manager and team leader. 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. We have made a recommendation about recording around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the body of our report. Staff supported people to ensure they ate and drank enough and to access healthcare services when needed.
People consistently told us staff were kind and caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported to have choice and control over their care and support.
People told us staff were extremely attentive and responsive to their needs. The service was flexible and responded positively to people’s requests; supporting people to live how they chose, maintaining their independence and assisting them to engage in a range of meaningful activities to reduce the risk of social isolation. People who used the service were central to shaping the service provided and how their needs were met. People felt confident in raising any issues or concerns and there were effective systems in place to gather feedback to monitor and improve the service for the benefit of the people who used it.
People told us the service was well-led. There was a positive, open and person-centred culture within the service. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 18 August 2015. It was an announced inspection. This was the first inspection of the service since it was newly registered in July 2014.
Martin Grange is registered to provide personal care to support people who want to retain their independence and continue living in their own home. The agency office is located within the main building, which contains a variety of one and two bedroomed apartments. There are also bungalows and a range of other accommodation on site. The agency provides staff over a twenty four hour period, who can be called upon at any time to offer assistance to anyone living on site. There is also the opportunity for people to purchase care packages to support them with their personal and medical needs. The agency also provides companionship, domestic, gardening and handyman services and escorts for people, for example when attending hospital appointments.
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.
At the time of our inspection there were nine people who received a service from the agency. The service also provided 24 hour staff cover, with everyone having access to an on call system should they require assistance during the day or night. This service extended to those people living on site who did not have a care package with the agency. People who used the service were mainly older people living with a variety of medical conditions.
People told us they felt safe and that they trusted the care staff who supported them. Care staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to safeguard adults at risk of harm. The safeguarding policy was up to date and included recent changes to legislation. This meant staff had the most up to date guidance to help them safeguard people. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to reduce the risk of harm.
There were enough staff to provide the support people required, this was confirmed by the people we spoke with during the inspection process and by the staff. Staff told us they had enough time to get to know people well. People were supported by a consistent team of staff and people told us staff were reliable. The service had an effective and robust system in place to recruit staff.
People were supported to have their medicines safely. Staff were trained and the medication policy was based on good practice guidelines.
People spoke highly of the care staff and the manager. People told us staff were skilled and well trained. We saw the service had a comprehensive induction programme in place and they worked hard to assure themselves people were equipped to deliver a good standard of care. Care staff had access to ongoing training, supervision and had an annual appraisal.
People were supported to have a good diet, including access to an on-site Bistro, serving a main meal at lunchtime and ‘light bites’ for tea. Care staff identified concerns regarding people’s medical conditions and sought advice from health care professionals as necessary.
The service was working to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 and care staff supported people to make their own choices about their care and daily activities.
People told us the care they received was “excellent” and “brilliant.” People described to us how staff made their lives easier and that “nothing was too much trouble.” Care staff spoke enthusiastically about their work and their commitment to provide good standard of care. They told us they would be happy for their family member to receive care from the service. There was a focus on maintaining people’s independence and people’s confidentiality was respected always.
Care and support was planned with people. In some cases families were also consulted where necessary. Care plans were person centred and focused on people’s well-being, aspirations and goals and social activity. Care and support was reviewed on a regular basis. There was a strong focus on reducing social isolation and people were supported to be involved with the ‘on site’ community as well as their local community.
People knew how to make complaints. The service investigated complaints thoroughly and was keen to improve the service.
People told us the service was well-led and that the ethos of the service was about ensuring a high standard of care was provided. Care staff told us they enjoyed working for the organisation and felt very well supported to do their job well.
There was a leadership team who were committed to delivering a good service. They held regular meetings and had effective systems in place to assure themselves they were delivering a good quality standard of care.
The leadership team continually explored ways of improving the service; one example of this was their focus on work to develop specialist skills, knowledge and partnership links to support people to live independently for as long as possible.
There had not been a recent customer questionnaire, however, people told us they had no complaints and that they were more than happy with the way the agency supported them. People told us they knew the staff team by name and that if they needed to raise an issue or make a change to how they were supported they could do this without fuss. There was also a Resident’s Committee and strong focus group who met regularly with the manager to ‘iron out’ any issues or take up matters on behalf of the ‘on site’ residents.