You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

This care home is run by two companies: Bayfield Court Operations Limited and Gracewell Healthcare Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

Gracewell of Chingford is a care home for 46 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is spread out over three floors. At the time of this inspection there were 45 people using the service.

This care home is run by two companies: Gracewell Healthcare Limited and Bayfield Court Operations Limited. These two companies have dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.

This inspection took place on 17, 21 and 24 December 2018. The inspection was unannounced. At the last inspection in October 2016, the service was rated as Good. This inspection was prompted by an increase in incidents being reported. At this inspection we found the service had met all relevant fundamental standards and remained Good.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about reporting abuse and whistleblowing. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The provider had safe recruitment procedures in place. Risk assessments were carried out to mitigate the risks of harm people may face. Building and equipment safety checks were carried out. Medicines were managed safely. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. Accidents and incidents were recorded, and lessons learnt from these.

People had their care needs assessed before they began to use the service. Staff were supported to carry out their role effectively through supervisions, appraisals and training. People were offered choices of nutritious food and drink and staff were knowledgeable about people's dietary requirements. Staff assisted people to maintain their health. The provider had systems in place for the staff team to share information about people’s well-being. The building was tastefully decorated. However, the décor of the building meant some people could have difficulty finding their bedroom. The provider was in the process of refurbishing the building. Care was provided in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Staff understood the need to obtain consent before delivering care.

People and relatives thought staff were kind and caring. Staff explained how they got to know people and their care needs. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about the care. Each person had a named care worker who had overall responsibility for their care. Staff knew how to provide an equitable service. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.

Staff understood how to provide a personalised care service. Care plans were personalised, contained people’s preferences and were reviewed monthly. People were offered a variety of activities to meet their social needs. Care plans included people’s communication needs. The provider kept a record of complaints and these were used to make improvements to the service. People had their wishes documented for end of life care.

People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the leadership in the service. The provider had a system in place to receive feedback about the service from people using the service, relatives and staff so they could use these to make improvements to the service. People, relatives and staff had regular meetings, so they could be updated and give their views about the development of the service. The provider had quality audit systems in place to identify areas for improvement. The service worked in partnersh

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

The service remains safe. People felt safe using the service. The provider and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns.

People had risk assessments carried out to mitigate the risk of harm to them. Building and equipment safety checks were carried out.

There were enough suitably qualified and experienced staff employed to meet people�s needs.

Medicines were managed safely. People were protected from the risk of the spread of infection.

The provider had a system to record accidents and incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

The service remains effective. People�s needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the service could meet people�s needs.

Staff were supported to deliver care effectively through training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals.

Staff spoke positively about communication within the staff team. Healthcare professionals spoke positively about joint working with the service. People�s nutritional and healthcare needs were met.

The premises were tastefully decorated. However, some people could have difficulty finding their bedrooms.

The provider and staff knew what was required of them to work within the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Caring

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

The service remains caring. People thought staff were caring.

Staff were knowledgeable about people�s care needs.

The provider involved people and relatives in decisions about care.

Staff understood how to provide an equitable service.

People�s privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

The service remains responsive. Staff understood how to deliver personalised care.

Care plans were detailed, personalised and contained people�s preferences.

People�s communication needs were met.

People were offered a variety of activities.

The provider had a system in place to record and handle complaints.

Care records included people�s end of life care wishes.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

The service remains well-led. There was a registered manager at the service.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service.

The provider sought feedback from people, relatives and staff to identify improvements that could be made.

People, relatives and staff had regular meetings, so they could be updated on service development.

The provider had various quality audit systems in place to check the quality of service provided.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to identify areas for improvement.