Archived: Grisedale Croft

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ There were good practices in the home to prevent the spread of infection by visitors. The home had its own NHS barcode for track and trace at the entrance. People were prompted to consider if they were symptomatic before entering the home.

¿ The provider made sure staff had enough personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, aprons and masks. Staff knew when to wear these to keep people safe. There were PPE stations and posters around the home reminding staff how to use PPE in the right order.

¿ The home benefited from a small, static staff team and people were familiar with them. People said they had become used to staff wearing masks all the time.

¿ Staff supported people to keep at a safe distance of two metres. When new people came to live or stay at the home they were supported to stay in their room for a safe period.

¿ Staff had training in infection prevention and control and in Covid-19. The provider made sure staff were aware of the latest national and local guidance about infection control measures.

¿ The home looked very clean and housekeeping staff had good supplies of

appropriate cleaning products. They made sure they frequently cleaned touch points, such as

handrails and door handles.

¿ Staff and residents had regular testing for Covid-19. The provider and registered manager were very supportive of the emotional well-being of people and staff.

Further information is in the findings below.

Grisedale Croft provides care for up to 13 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were nine people living there at the time of our inspection. Grisedale Croft is a 'care home'. 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 service focused on people enjoying a meaningful day both within Grisedale Croft and out in the local community. Activities were plentiful and varied. People were encouraged and supported to access their local community which the home was very much a part of. People and their relatives told us they were extremely happy with their lives within the home. We were told about multiple examples of person-centred activities and events which had been tailored to meet people’s individual wishes. People were appreciative of the service and it had a positive impact on their lives.

The staff team were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The staff team understood how to protect adults from situations in which they would be vulnerable to harm and abuse. Staff had received suitable training and talked to us about how they would identify any issues and how they would report them appropriately. Risk assessments and risk management plans supported people well. Arrangements were in place to ensure that new members of staff had been suitably checked before commencing employment. All new staff completed an induction.

Any accidents or incidents had been reported to the Care Quality Commission as necessary and suitable action taken to lessen the risk of further issues. Risk assessments and care plans provided guidance for staff in the home. Where possible, people in the service were involved in writing care plans. The management team had ensured the plans reflected the person-centred care that was being delivered.

Medicines were appropriately managed in the service with people having reviews of their medicines on a regular basis. People in the service saw their GP and health specialists whenever necessary and were able to attend hospital appointments.

We saw that an assessment of needs was in place. People were happy with the food provided. The home itself was clean and comfortable on the day we visited. Suitable equipment was in place to support people with their mobility.

Complaints and concerns were suitably investigated and dealt with and good records management was in place in the service. There was also a quality monitoring system in place which was used to support future planning. Feedback from people obtained through regular questionnaires.

Grisedale Croft is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to up to 13 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 11 people living in the home on the day of our inspection. Grisedale Croft is situated in the small town of Alston in Cumbria and is very much part of the local community.

Accommodation is situated on two floors, the upper floors being accessible by a passenger lift and a stair lift. There are bedrooms and communal areas on both floors.

There are well kept gardens to the front of the building.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were happy and felt safe living in Grisedale Croft and said, "I love living here and I can’t manage on my own any more”.

People were protected by staff who knew how to keep them safe and managed individual risks well. Staffing levels were appropriate during the day and the manager brought in extra night staff when necessary to meet the needs of those using the service and to promote their independence.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

We spent time with people in all areas of the home. We saw that the staff offered people assistance and took the time to speak to people and take up the opportunities they had to interact with them and offer reassurance if needed.

People living there told us that care staff were mindful of their privacy and treated them with respect. We saw that the staff approached people in a friendly and respectful way and people we spoke to who lived there told us that it was a “very nice place to live”.

Visitors were made welcome in the home and people could see their friends and family as they wanted.

Staff training was up to date and staff confirmed they received training appropriate to their role within the service.

All health care needs were met by visiting health care professionals and medicines were appropriately administered by staff who had completed the relevant training.

We saw evidence that staff recruitment and selection was robust and that only suitable people were employed to care for and support people using this service.

There was an appropriate internal quality audit system in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

People knew how they could complain about the service they received and how to make a complaint was displayed in the home.