You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The inspection was carried out on 13 and 20 March 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

This was the first inspection of Pelham Grove since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in February 2016 with ADL Plc as the provider of the service. Prior to February 2016 the service had been operating under a different provider. Some staff including the registered manager transferred to working for ADL Plc when it registered to provide this service.

Pelham Grove is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to 35 people. At the time of our inspection 34 people were living there.

Pelham Grove is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates people in one adapted building.

The home has 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 living at Pelham Grove were complimentary about the service they received. Their comments included, “I feel safe and comfortable. The way they speak to people they have the patience of a saint.” “There can’t be many better. Because of the food, the layout, the staff and the feel of the place,” “It’s lovely here,” and “I would sooner be here than on my own.”

Systems were in place for safeguarding people from the risk of abuse and reporting any concerns that arose. People said they felt safe living there and staff knew what action to take if they felt people were at risk of abuse. A system was also in place for raising concerns or complaints and people living at the home and their relatives told us they would feel confident to raise a concern.

Pelham Grove was in the middle of a refurbishment programme. Equipment and the building were monitored regularly to ensure they were safe. The areas that had been refurbished had been carried out to a good standard. The building had adaptations and equipment to support people with their mobility and personal care. This included a lift, grab rails and call bells. We discussed with the registered manager checking with current good practice guidance around supporting people living with dementia or failing eyesight when making future decorating or adaptations to the building.

People’s medication was safely managed and they received it on time and as prescribed. Staff provided people with the support they needed to manage their physical and mental health care needs.

A series of assessments of people’s care needs had been carried out and regularly reviewed. Where people required support this was detailed in their care plans which provided guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs safely and well.

There was enough staff working at the home to meet people’s care needs. Systems were in place and followed to recruit staff and check they were suitable to work with people at risk of abuse or neglect.

People liked the staff team and told us that they were kind and caring. Staff had received training to help them understand and meet the care needs of people living at the home. Staff told us that they felt supported and we saw that they had regular staff meetings and supervisions with senior staff.

Staff spent time interacting with people as well as meeting their care needs. People told us that staff always respected their dignity and were attentive to their needs.

The home employed an activities coordinator who knew people well and tried to provide activities or company to everyone based on people’s individual needs and preferences. A range of activities were available including entertain

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to monitor any risks to people’s safety and reduce the risk of these occurring. People said they felt safe with the support they received at the home.

Enough staff were available to support people in a safe, unrushed manner. Systems were in place and followed to check new staff were suitable to work with people who may be vulnerable.

People’s medication was safely managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff knew people well and received training and support to understand and meet people’s needs.

People were supported to make decisions and choices for themselves as much as possible. Where they were unable to do so the provider took steps to make decisions in the person’s best interests or obtain legal protections for them.

Meals were sociable occasions which people enjoyed. Support was provided to people to meet their nutritional needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was caring.

People liked and trusted the staff team. They found staff kind and caring.

Staff knew people well, treated them with respect and maintained people’s dignity. They spent time interacting with people as well as meeting their care needs.

Information about the home and how it operated was made readily available to people and their visitors.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Activities were arranged to meet people’s choices and hobbies. These included opportunities to get out and about in the local community as well as take part in arranged activities at home.

Care plans provided clear guidance to staff on how to meet people’s needs and choices. These were followed by staff.

People felt confident to raise any concerns or complaints that they may have and these were dealt with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager was experienced and operated a well run service. She was liked and trusted by people living at the home, their visitors and staff.

Systems were in place for assessing the quality of the service and planning future improvements.