You are here

Archived: Pettsgrove Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

This inspection took place on 12 April 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 16 July 2015 we had found that while some improvements had been made from the inspection of December 2014, there were still breaches of regulations. These were in respect of safe management of people’s finances, insufficient arrangements to deal with emergencies to reduce risks to people, not having regard to treating people with dignity and respect at all times and not operating effective systems and processes to make sure they assessed and monitored their service.

Pettsgrove Care Home is a care home that provides care, support and accommodation for up to six people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were five people living in the home.

We took enforcement action following the inspection on 16 July 2015 and imposed conditions on the provider's registration regarding concerns we found about the management of people’s finances. We also served a warning notice in respect of a breach for not operating effective systems to monitor the quality of the service.

We carried out this inspection on 12 April 2016 to check what progress had been made in respect of addressing the breaches identified at the July 2015 inspection and also carried out a comprehensive ratings inspection.

At this inspection the home was supporting five people. There was a manager but no registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. The current director had submitted an application for registration as a registered manager by CQC..

We found considerable improvements had been made in each key question. People’s relatives felt the service was safe and that staff treated people well. The conditions we had imposed and the warning notice we had served had been complied with. There were appropriate records of people’s finances including their spending. Staff carried out daily and weekly checks of people’s finances to reduce the risk of financial abuse. Risks to people were identified and monitored.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people and the service had conducted appropriate recruitment checks before staff started work.

People had been involved in the planning of their care. We also saw that their relatives were involved as appropriate. Support plans and risk assessments provided clear information and guidance for staff on how to support people. This included guidance about meeting people’s nutritional needs.

Staff received adequate training and support to carry out their roles. They asked people for their consent before they provided care and demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff respected people and involved them in decisions about their care. People’s independence was promoted and supported.

Staff told us there had been improvements at the home following our July 2015 inspection. Audits had been carried out to identify any improvements that were needed. Staff felt confident they were heading in the right direction. The director of the service felt the service had recruited the right staff and management team to move the service forward.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and monitored, and guidance was available to staff on how to safely manage identified risks.

People received appropriate support with the management of their finances. There were procedures in place for the safe handling of their money.

There were arrangements to deal with emergencies. Staff had a good awareness of how to respond and were clear about actions to take if evacuation was required.

Staff recruitment procedures were effective and there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse or neglect.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was effective.

Staff completed an induction when they commenced work. Staff had received regular training relevant to the needs of people using the service. They also received regular supervision to support them in their roles.

People were supported to maintain good health. They had access to healthcare services to make sure they received effective healthcare and treatment. They were supported to have a balanced diet and their dietary needs were assessed and monitored.

Staff asked people for consent before they provided care. They were aware of their responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was caring. People were supported and staff understood individual's needs.

People were treated with respect and staff maintained privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was responsive. People were involved in developing their support plans in collaboration with their family and staff.

Staff were knowledgeable about individual support needs, their interests, and preferences and actively supported people.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and complaints were responded to and resolved appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was well led. Staff told us things had improved since our last inspection.

Staff had confidence in the management plans. The service director and staff knew there was still progress to be made and were open about this.

People's views were sought about the running of the service and audits were completed to identify any problems which were then addressed.

There were a range of processes in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.