Grosvenor Park Community Project

Grosvenor Park Community is a 5 bedded service for people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were 5 people using the service.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from the risks of abuse and neglect, as staff were clear of their responsibilities to protect people from harm. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's support needs and recruitment processes were managed safely. Risk assessments had been completed, which guided staff how to keep people safe from avoidable harm. The provider had systems to record and monitor accidents and incidents. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection and the home was clean and tidy.

People’s needs assessments were completed before they started using the service. People received support from staff who had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. Staff completed an induction programme when they first started working for the service. Staff also received training, and supervision. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. People were supported to express their choice in areas such as how they wanted to be supported. Care records were written to reflect people's individual needs and were regularly reviewed. The provider had a policy and procedure for dealing with any concerns or complaints.

The home was clean and tidy, and measures had been taken to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. The provider ensured that there were systems in place for learning from accidents and incidents took place to prevent recurrence.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last inspection for this service was rated good (published 03 August 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Grosvenor Park Community Project can accommodate five people across two floors. At the time of this inspection, four people were using the service.

This inspection took place on 4 and 11 June 2018 and was announced. At the last inspection in August 2016, the service was rated as overall Good but we found two breaches of the regulations. This was because the systems to protect people from the risk of financial abuse were not sufficiently robust and medicines were not always recorded correctly. We also recommended that surveys are carried out in a systematic manner to enable the service to learn and develop from the survey results. During this inspection, we found improvements had been made.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were carried out to mitigate the risks of harm people may face at home and in the community. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. The provider analysed incidents and used this information as a learning tool to improve the service.

People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the provider could meet their needs. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and annual appraisals to ensure they could deliver care effectively. People were provided with support by suitably trained staff. Staff supported people to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and to maintain their health.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the need to obtain consent before delivering care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff described how they developed caring relationships with people and demonstrated they knew what people’s individual care needs and preferences were. People were included in the care planning process. Staff were knowledgeable about equality and diversity. People were supported to maintain their independence and their privacy and dignity was promoted.

Care records were personalised, contained people’s preferences and were goal focussed. The provider reviewed people’s care records regularly to ensure care was delivered appropriately. Staff understood how to deliver a personalised care service. The service had a complaints procedure and kept a record of compliments.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. The provider had systems in place to obtain feedback from people and professionals about the quality of the service in order to make improvements where needed. People were involved through regular meetings in how the service was run. Staff had regular meetings to keep them updated on care practice. The provider carried out quality assurance checks to identify areas for improvement. The provider worked jointly with other agencies to share good practice.

We have made one recommendation about medicines management. Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and support with personal care to a maximum of five adults with mental health needs. Four people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

The service did not have sufficiently robust systems in place for protecting people from the risk of financial abuse. Medicines were not always recorded correctly. The service carried out surveys of people and professionals. However, this was not done in a systematic way and there was no learning or development of the service from these surveys.

We found two breaches of Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report. We have also made two good practice recommendations.

Risk assessments were in place which included information about how to support people in a safe manner. There were enough staff working at the service and robust staff recruitment procedures were in place.

Staff were well supported and received regular training and supervision. The service was operating within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people were able to make choices about their daily lives. People had routine access to health care professionals.

People told us they were treated with respect and in a caring manner by staff. The service promoted people’s independence and privacy.

Care plans were in place which set out how to meet people’s individual needs. People were supported to engage in a variety of activities. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

People and staff spoke positively of the registered manager. The service had quality assurance and monitoring systems in place, some of which involved seeking the views of people that used the service.

We observed people being treated with respect by staff and having their privacy and dignity respected.

The manager told us that people who use the service were actively encouraged and supported as far as they were willing to maintain and develop their independent living skills. Care plans we looked at contained information that clearly showed us the willingness and capacity of the people who use the service. One person was attending the local college three times a week.

People using the service were able to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. They were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment.

We saw the satisfaction surveys that had been completed by people using the service and their representatives. They were happy with the care being provided in the home. The provider had a system to assess the feedback provided in the satisfaction questionnaires and to take action where required to address areas where improvement had been identified.

People living at the home told us they were involved in their care. One person told us "I know what's happening as I'm always at

my reviews."

People's needs were at the forefront and we saw evidence of how the home registered people at the general practitioner, optician and dentist.

We saw that care plans stated how to support the individual in their needs and future goals. Risk assessments were up to date and reflected the individuals current care package.

People at the home and their relatives told us they were safe there. One relative said "X is safe here, this is a good service the other place not as good."

Staff were supported in their role and received a thorough induction. People at the home told us the staff were good at their jobs and knew what they were doing.

The service monitored the quality of care by having a provider survey go to staff but people living at the home did not have a survey. However we did see that people living in the home were encouraged to comment with feedback on how the service could be improved.