You are here

Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 August 2017

This inspection took place on 31 May 2017 and was unannounced which meant the staff and registered provider did not know we would be visiting. The service was last inspected on 10 February 2015. The overall rating of the service was good. At this inspection we found the overall rating of the service was good.

The manager had started managing the service in February 2017 and had applied to register with the Care Quality Commission. 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.’

Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 52 people. It is a purpose built care service. At the time of our inspection 48 people were living at the service.

People we spoke with told us they felt ‘safe’ and did not have any worries or concerns. Relatives we spoke with felt their family member was in a safe place.

Systems were in place to manage people’s medicines. We saw that the system in place to ensure medicines were stored at the right temperature required improvement.

Prior to inspection and shortly after the inspection we received some concerns relating to how people were supported to move. During the inspection we did not see any examples of people being supported inappropriately to move. The manager told us they were aware of the concerns and they were working with the service’s in house trainer to ensure staff followed the correct methods whilst supporting people to move.

Staff had undertaken safeguarding training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe from harm.

There was a system in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This monitoring helps reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

We did not receive any concerns from relatives or people using the service regarding the staffing levels at the service. Staff we spoke with told us the manager had improved the staffing levels at the service since they had started working there. During the inspection staff responded to people’s calls for assistance in a timely manner

People we spoke with were satisfied with the quality of care they had received. People’s comments included: “I like living here,” “It’s smashing here. I can’t fault it” and “They [staff] go out of their way to make you comfortable.”

In people’s records we found evidence of involvement from other professionals such as doctors, opticians, tissue viability nurses and speech and language practitioners. This showed that people had access to healthcare professionals to support their health.

Relatives we spoke with were satisfied with the quality of care their family member had received. Some of the relatives we spoke with told us they would recommend the service.

People using the service and relatives we spoke with made positive comments about the staff and told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

During the inspection we observed staff giving care and assistance to people. They were respectful and treated people in a caring and supportive way.

Most people we spoke with were satisfied with the quality of the food that was provided at the service. People’s nutritional needs were monitored and actions taken where required. Preferences and dietary needs were being met.

We found people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people.

Staff had received a thorough induction and their training was regularly updated. We saw staff received appropriate support to enable them to carry out their duties.

The service

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2017

The service was not always safe.

Systems were in place to manage people�s medicines. We saw that the system in place to ensure medicines were stored at the right temperature required improvement.

Prior to the inspection and shortly after the inspection we received some concerns regarding staff not always supporting people to move safely.

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 August 2017

The service was effective.

People made positive comments about the care they had received.

Staff had received a thorough induction and we saw staff training was regularly updated.

We saw staff received appropriate support to enable them to carry out their duties

Caring

Good

Updated 2 August 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect, and their privacy was protected.

People using the service and relatives made positive comments about the staff.

Staff enjoyed working at the service. They were respectful and treated people in a caring and supportive way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 August 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s care records showed that people had a written plan in place with details of their planned care. We saw that personal preferences were reflected throughout their care plan.

We saw the service promoted people�s wellbeing by taking account of their needs including activities within the service and in the community.

Complaints were recorded and dealt with in line with organisational policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 August 2017

The service was well-led.

People using the service and relatives made positive comments about how the service was managed.

There were processes in place to ensure the quality and safety of the service were monitored.

The new manager was actively seeking the views of people using the service and their representatives.