You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 May 2014
Date of Publication: 3 June 2014
Inspection Report published 03 June 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 9 May 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with 14 people who used the service and three visiting relatives. We also spoke with the Hospitality Manager and Acting Regional Manager and 10 staff.

We looked at the care records for six people. We also looked at how people were involved in their care and in developing the service, how safe they were, support and supervision systems for staff and quality assurance checks.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

Staff had received a range of training to protect people from harm. Safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse (SOVA), Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training were completed every year. Staff we spoke with told us that they were aware of the action they would take if they suspected abuse was or had taken place. They were also aware of what it meant to deprive someone of their liberty and why this was sometimes necessary. This assured people who used the service that staff had the knowledge to know how to protect them from harm.

We found that the service had suitable arrangements in place to gain people�s consent and assess their mental capacity to make decisions before acting on their behalf.

The policy, procedures and quality monitoring of the service included health and safety and reviews of care planning and delivery. This system was comprehensive and ensured people lived in a safe environment with safe care.

Is the service effective?

People's assessments showed that their care, support and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured that their needs were being met. Individualised care meant that people were fully involved, where possible, in choices and decisions about their lives. This made their care more effective as it enhanced their wellbeing and independence. One person said, �The carers are really good and the food is alright."

Is the service caring?

We saw good interaction between staff and people who used the service. Staff spoke to people respectfully; they were caring and courteous in their manner. People told us that the staff were very kind and gentle. One relative said, �The staff are very caring here, very caring indeed.�

Staff had a good knowledge of people�s likes and dislikes. People told us that the staff treated them respectfully. One person said, �They [the staff] have a heart of gold.� People�s preferences and diverse needs had been recorded in their care files and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes. This showed that people were cared for by kind and caring staff.

Is the service responsive?

The service offered a range of activities and places of interest for people to go within the service. Themed areas such as a �shed�, library and caf� had been developed from listening to the views of people who used the service and their relatives. One person said, �I can choose to do something if I want, there�s always something going on.�

Reviews of people�s care and health records showed that the service made sure that people received their care in a joined up way. People were responded to on an individual basis and staff knew people�s needs well.

We saw from the records viewed that the service worked well with other agencies. A range of professionals from the community were involved in people�s care. This showed that people�s specialist health care needs were considered and that the service was responsive to people�s changing needs.

Is the service well-led?

A comprehensive quality monitoring process and improvement plan was in place. Regular care reviews and discussions about nursing, care and social needs with people who used the service and their families took place. This ensured that people�s changing needs and preferences were always taken into account. A survey had been sent to relatives to enable the service to capture peoples� views and experiences.

Staff training and supervision was provided for all staff. They told us they felt supported in their role.

The service was well-led as it was continually improving in its care provision and in the environment to make Anisha Grange a good place to live and work.