• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Grange

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Priddy Road, Priddy Road, Green Ore, Wells, Somerset, BA5 3EN (01749) 674431

Provided and run by:
Mr Neil Bradbury

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

30 June and 3 July 2015

During a routine inspection

The Grange provides accommodation for up to 13 people. The home provides care and support for people with a range of complex needs including learning disabilities, autism and mental health needs. The accommodation is arranged in two separate buildings; one unit is called the Grange and the other is called the Courtyard. People live in self-contained flats in both units.

The Grange can accommodate up to four people. People that live in the Grange unit have high levels of support and have limited communication skills so require alternative forms of communication such as Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), which is a method of using pictures to initiate communication for people and enable them to make choices. The Courtyard unit can accommodate up to nine people. People living in this unit have a range of needs including mental health and autism; these people are working towards improving their independence and require varying levels of support.

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 30 June 2015 and 3 July 2015.

There are two unit managers who are responsible for the day to day running of their designated unit and these managers are overseen by the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has been 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.

Although people told us that they felt safe, there were risks to their safety. The provider did not follow their own guidelines as risk assessments were not in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. People and staff were at risk because one evacuation plan could not be followed in a fire as there was a problem with a door not opening. Some staff were concerned about changes that were going to be made at night to the staff levels in the home.

All new staff completed thorough training before working in the home. The staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from avoidable harm or abuse. They knew what action to take if they were concerned about the safety or welfare of an individual. They told us they would be confident reporting any concerns to a senior person in the home and they knew who to contact externally. The medication processes in the home were good.

The staff had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported. They understood how to help people become more independent and how to respect their privacy and dignity. Staff supported people to see other professionals to help with their care. Staff supported and respected the choices made by the people and actively involved them in their care.

In the Courtyard unit, people had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. People had been included in planning menus and they had the opportunity to shop for and prepare their own food. In the Grange unit, alternative ways were found to help the people communicate their food choices, but these were not always followed as people did not choose their evening meal.

People were supported to have visitors or see their friends. There was a clear understanding of how important this was to the people who lived at the home.

There were detailed care plans for all individuals to reflect their complex needs. People and their relatives had input into the care plans to ensure they were person centred. The environments in flats were not always reflecting the needs of the people who lived in them.

People knew how to complain and when they had raised concerned they had been managed well.

The Grange had a clear management structure in place. They had a quality assurance system in place but it was not fully effective. The staff did find the management team supportive and did not always receive formal support and development through regular meetings.

14 July 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out by one inspector, who answered the five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? 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, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

We found the service to be safe because people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. When people displayed behaviour, which challenged others, staff dealt with it effectively and respected people's dignity and protected their rights.

When people were at risk, staff followed effective risk management policies and procedures to protect them. Staff supported people to take informed risks with minimal necessary restrictions to as far as possible protect their welfare.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Service managers were in the process of re-assessing the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) for people who use the service and were having discussions with local authorities about this. This meant that people were protected from discrimination and their human rights were protected.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Prescribed medicines (including controlled drugs) were stored and administered safely in line with current and relevant regulations and guidance.

The service followed safe recruitment practices. People were safe because the service considered skill mix and experience when arranging staffing.

Is the service effective?

We found the service to be effective because there was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant when required people could access additional support.

Care plans reflected people's current individual needs, choices and preferences. People's health was regularly monitored to identify any changes that may require additional support or intervention.

Staff supported people to take informed risks with minimal necessary restrictions. The environment enabled staff to meet people's diverse care, cultural and support needs.

Staff had effective support, induction, supervision and appraisal.

Is the service caring?

We found the service to be caring because people were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. Staff responded in a caring way to people's needs when they needed it.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. Appropriate professionals were involved in planning, management and decision making.

Staff knew the people they were caring for and supporting. People were as independent as they wanted to be. Staff told us, 'We can show them pictures if they can't communicate verbally and offer lots of different choices, then they can choose what they like.'

Is the service responsive?

We found the service responsive because, where appropriate, a person's capacity was considered under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. When a person did not have capacity, decisions were always made in their best interests. Advocacy support was provided when needed.

People had their individual needs regularly assessed and met. There were arrangements in place to speak to people about what was important to them. People we spoke with said, 'Staff are brilliant', 'They do lots of things for us.' Relatives we spoke with said, 'It's very good, our son is very happy', 'It's the best place he's had, at least we think it is.'

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them and were protected from social isolation.

Is the service well-led?

There wasn't a registered manager in post on the day of our visit.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving. Robust quality assurance and governance systems were in place and used to drive continuous improvement.

Concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity for learning or improvement.