You are here

Georgina House Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 April 2014
Date of Publication: 22 May 2014
Inspection Report published 22 May 2014 PDF | 77.12 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 17 April 2014

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activity at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

When we visited Georgina House on the 17 April 2014, we gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We always ask the following five questions of services.

Is the service safe?

We observed people were treated with respect and dignity and there were good interactions between people and staff. People looked relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. We saw staff demonstrated genuine warmth, care and concern for people.

The home had a system in place to ensure that people’s risk assessments were kept under regular review. Arrangements were in place to monitor accidents and incidents that occurred. This meant that measures were put in place to prevent a recurrence.

Staff spoken with said that there was no one at the home on the day of our inspection whose liberty was being deprived. We saw evidence which confirmed that staff had been provided with training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff were able to describe what measures the home had in place to promote people’s safety and how they would protect people if they felt their human rights were being breached.

The home had infection control processes in place to ensure that it was clean and hygienic. People were protected against the risk of acquiring infections.

Is the service effective?

Staff told us that people had access to an advocate if required. There was a notice displayed in the home to remind staff how to access the local advocacy service. This meant that if required people could access additional support.

We found that people’s care plans provided detailed information on how they wished to be supported with their care needs. Health action plans had been developed for people. These were appropriately maintained to ensure if required, a new member of staff or agency worker would be able to deliver care safely and effectively.

We found that people’s health care needs were kept under regular review. They had access to health care professionals such as the GP, dentist, optician and district nurse. This meant that people were supported to keep healthy and well.

The home had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place. This meant that people’s health and welfare needs were looked after by staff who were fit and appropriately qualified to undertake their job.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff talking to people in a kind and respectful manner. Staff demonstrated genuine warmth, care and concern to people. Staff spoken with were knowledgeable about people’s care needs. It was evident that staff responded to people in a caring manner.

Is the service responsive?

We found that people were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care treatment and support. We found where people did not have the capacity to make decisions, best interest meetings were held involving the GP, an advocate and the home’s staff.

We saw evidence that regular care plan reviews took place. This meant that people’s care needs were current and kept under regular review.

We found that where appropriate staff enabled people to have access to outside activities that were important and relevant to them. It was evident that people were protected from becoming isolated and were provided with activities to meet their diverse needs.

Is the service well led?

Staff spoken with said that they felt supported by the interim manager and were provided with regular staff meetings. At these meetings they were able to raise questions and make suggestions relating to the provision of care. This meant that staff felt supported and well-led.

The home ensured that the complaints procedure was available in a suitable format to meet people’s diverse needs. Arrangements were in place to monitor complaints, accidents and incidents. This meant that lessons were learnt from mistakes, incidents and complaints investigations to ensure improvements with the service delivery.