You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Grovelands Farmhouse. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 December 2016

Grovelands Farmhouse is registered to provide personal care, support and accommodation for up to nine adults who may have a learning disability, an autistic spectrum disorder and physical health needs. The service was made up of two separate houses, Grovelands Farmhouse and Primrose Bank, which were located on a rural road within a short walk of each other. Grovelands Farmhouse could accommodate seven people and Primrose Bank could accommodate two people. At the time of our inspection each room was occupied in both houses.

The home had 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We carried out a previous inspection of this service on 16 June 2014 where we found the service was meeting the requirements in the areas we looked at.

This inspection took place on 9 November 2016 and was unannounced. At the time of our inspection there were nine people being supported at Grovelands Farmhouse. People had a range of needs, with some people living with learning disabilities, autism, epilepsy and other healthcare needs.

Grovelands Farmhouse and Primrose Bank were located next to a working farm. People who lived in both houses were able to visit the farm at any time and take part in animal care, farming activities as well as arts and crafts and life skills classes. People benefited from a large number of meaningful activities which met their individual needs and interests. These took place at the farm, at the service or out in the community. For example, activities included swimming, cooking, dancing, gardening, shopping and trampoline sessions.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff at the service and the quality of care provided. Comments from people included “I do love living here”, “I’ve got a nice home here” and “I love (staff name) and I love all the other staff”. Comments from relatives included “We are impressed with the quality of the carers they have there” and “The staff are genuinely caring. Some of the staff are like having a proxy mum, that’s how caring they are”.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People enjoyed pleasant and affectionate interactions with staff which demonstrated people felt comfortable in their presence. Staff knew people’s preferences and communicated with people using their preferred methods of communication. For example, some people who had difficulty communicating verbally used pictures to help them communicate.

People were protected from risks relating to their health, medicines, nutrition and behaviours. Staff had assessed individual risks to people and had taken action to minimise these risks. Where accidents and incidents had taken place, these had been reviewed and action had been taken to reduce the risks of reoccurrence. Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and staff competencies relating to the administration of medicines were regularly checked.

Staff knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse which helped protect people. Staff knew what signs to look out for and the procedures to follow should they need to report concerns. Safeguarding information and contact numbers for the relevant bodies were accessible to staff and people who lived in the service. People and staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns. Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only people of good character were employed by the home. Staff underwent Disclosure and Barring Service (police record) checks before they started work in order to ensure they were suitable to work with people who were vulnerable.

Staffing numbers at the service were sufficient to meet people’s needs and provide them with two to one or one to one support where requ

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 December 2016

The service was safe.

People received their medicines as prescribed. The systems in place for the management of medicines were safe and protected people who lived at the service

Risks to people had been identified and action had been taken to minimise these risks.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff understood the signs of abuse and how to report concerns.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 December 2016

The service was effective.

People’s rights were respected. Staff had clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff had completed training to give them the skills they needed to meet people’s individual care needs.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People were supported to eat in a personalised way which met their needs and preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 December 2016

The service was caring.

Staff displayed caring attitudes towards people and spoke about people with affection and respect.

Staff supported people in an individualised way.

Staff knew people’s histories, their preferences, likes and dislikes.

People were treated with dignity.

People were encouraged to be independent and have a say in the way their care was delivered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 December 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff were responsive to people’s individual needs and these needs were regularly reviewed.

People benefited from meaningful activities which reflected their interests.

People felt comfortable making complaints and were encouraged to do so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 December 2016

The service was well led.

People and relatives spoke highly of the registered manager and confirmed they were approachable.

There was an open culture where people and staff were encouraged to provide feedback. This was used to improve the service.

There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the care provided to people.

People and their relatives were asked for their feedback.