We carried out a review of the data available to us about Capel Grange Residential Home 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 Capel Grange Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People were well supported by staff to have telephone and internet contact with their family and friends. The manager had purchased speaker equipment to improve the sound of video calls. The staff facilitated in person visits in a manner which minimised the risk of infection spread, including garden visits, and visits using a specially adapted screened room through an external door on the ground floor of the home.
The registered manager had plans in place to isolate people with COVID-19 to minimise transmission. The service had good supplies of personal protective equipment that were readily available at stations throughout the service.
Visitors were asked health screening questions regarding COVID-19, received COVID-19 lateral flow tests and were expected to sanitise their hands when they arrived. Staff recorded visits on a visitor board to facilitate these in a timely and fair way.
Staff had received training on how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and staff and residents were regularly tested for COVID-19. The building was clean and free from clutter.
Staff ensured people’s welfare had been maintained and they had sufficient stimulation, with activities facilitated by staff. Staff were seen to support people to participate in activities and people seemed comfortable, relaxed and happy when interacting with staff.
For more details, please read the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People’s experience of using this service:
• One relative described the choice they made for their loved one to live at Capel Grange as ‘the best decision they ever made’. They told us, “All the staff from the management to the domestic staff have been incredibly supportive of not only my relative but also of us. They have gone well above what we would have expected, the love and kindness they have given…is considerable. They made it her home and my relative made them self at home.”
• The provider promoted a good quality of life for people in a homely and well-maintained environment.
• People were happy living at the home, were supported to remain healthy, active and independent and were well cared for.
• Care was person centred, achieved good outcomes and people were offered choice and involved wherever possible.
• All feedback from people, relatives and staff was positive.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published 2 March 2017).
Why we inspected: This was a comprehensive inspection. We brought this inspection forward due to information of concern from a safeguarding raised. This had been investigated by the local authority and any abuse had been discounted. We did not find anything at our inspection which raised any concerns.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor this home and plan to inspect in line with our reinspection schedule for those services rated Good.
This inspection was carried out on 27 and 30 January 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and an expert by experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
There was not a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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. A new manager had appointed and had begun working in the service. They were in the process of applying for registration with the commission.
People told us they were very happy using the service and felt safe and well cared for. The manager held strong person centred values and had ensured the culture of the service was relaxed and flexible to meet people’s needs and wishes. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves. Personalised care and support was provided at an appropriate pace for each person so that they did not feel rushed. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and requests. People had positive relationships with the staff that supported them, because the staff knew them well and understood what was important to them. Staff understood the importance of meeting people’s emotional and social needs in addition to their physical needs. They ensured that these were given equal importance when delivering care.
People were protected by staff that understood how to recognise and respond to signs of abuse. Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness and respect. People’s right to privacy was maintained. Risks to people’s wellbeing were assessed and staff knew what action they needed to take to keep people safe. The premises were safe, clean and hygienic. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of infection spreading in the service and they followed safe practice.
There was a sufficient number of staff on duty at all times to meet people’s needs in a safe way. Staff had the time to chat with people and support them with social activities in addition to meeting their health and care needs. The registered provider had systems in place to check the suitability of staff before they began working in the service. People and their relatives could be assured that staff were of good character and fit to carry out their duties. Staff had completed training and qualifications relevant to their role.
Staff identified and met people’s health needs. Where people’s needs changed they sought advice from healthcare professionals and reviewed their care plan. Records relating to the care of people using the service were accurate and complete to allow the manager to monitor their needs. People had enough to eat and drink and were supported to make choices about their meals. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and restrictions. Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly.
Staff sought and obtained people’s consent before they helped them. People’s mental capacity was assessed when necessary about particular decisions. When necessary, meetings were held to make decisions in people’s best interest, following the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed in respect of depriving people of their liberty. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Clear information about the service and how to complain was provided to people and visitors. People were involved in developing and improving the service through residents meetings and quality surveys. It was evident that people’s opinions were valued. There was a system for monitoring the quality and safety of the service to identify any improvements that needed to be made.