You are here

Archived: Agincare UK - Hilton Grange Extra Care Scheme Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

This inspection took place on 15 February 2016 and was announced.

Hilton Grange is an Extracare Scheme which is situated in the northwest part of Nottingham and is registered to provide personal care. At the time of inspection 30 people were using the service, each person living in their own flat and receiving support with their personal care needs from Agincare.

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.

People who used the service and those supporting them knew who to report any concerns to if they felt they or others had been the victim of abuse. Risks to people’s health and safety were managed and detailed plans were in place to enable staff to support people safely. Accidents and incidents were investigated. There were enough staff with the right skills and experience to meet people’s needs. Staff provided people with the support they needed to ensure that they received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported by staff who had received the appropriate training to support people effectively. Staff received supervision of their work. Staff ensured that people had sufficient to eat and drink independently. People had regular access to their GP and other health care professionals.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider was aware of the principles of the MCA and how this might affect the care they provided to people. Where people had the capacity they were asked to provide their consent to the care being provided.

People were supported by staff who were caring and treated them with kindness, respect and dignity. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care to ensure that they received the care they wanted. People could have privacy when needed.

Care plans were written in a way that focused on people’s choices and preferences and care was provided in a person centred way. A complaints procedure was in place and people felt comfortable in making a complaint if needed.

The culture of the service was open. People were supported by staff who were clear about what was expected of them and staff had confidence that they would get the support they needed from the registered manager. People and staff were asked for their opinions about the quality of the service. The registered manager undertook audits and observed practice to ensure that the care provided met people’s needs.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who could identify the different types of abuse and knew who to report concerns to.

Risks to people�s safety were assessed and any accidents and incidents were thoroughly investigated.

People were supported by a sufficient number of staff who had been appropriately recruited.

People received the support they needed to ensure that they received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was effective.

People received support from staff who had the appropriate skills, training and experience.

People received the support they needed to ensure that they ate and drank enough.

Staff applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) appropriately when providing care for people.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff in a respectful, kind and caring way.

People were actively encouraged to make decisions about the care they received.

People�s dignity was maintained by staff who understood the importance of this.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care that was personalised to their preferences and adapted to take account of any changing need.

A complaints procedure was in place, people felt confident in making a complaint and felt it would be acted on.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was well-led.

There was a positive, friendly atmosphere at the service.

The registered manager gave clear leadership and staff had a clear understanding of their role.

There was an effective process in place to check on the quality of the service.