You are here

Grace House Care Home Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 February 2018

This inspection took place on 09 January 2018 and was unannounced. Our last inspection was in October 2016 where we identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities 2014). These related to governance and the processes for obtaining consent from people. At this inspection, the provider had taken action to meet the requirements of the regulations.

Grace House is a residential home providing care and support to up to 21 older people. People living at the home had physical disabilities, frailty and some people were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, there were 18 people living at the home.

Grace House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People had access to a wide range of activities that were tailored to their interests. Staff took time to find out about people’s interests and identified activities based on these. People were complimentary about the food on offer at the home and the provider regularly asked people’s feedback on food, activities and the care that people received. Staff provided support to people in a way that respected their right to consent and in line with the legal process set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Care was planned in a person-centred way. People’s care plans contained important information about their needs and what was important to them. People’s wishes for end of life care were clearly documented. Where people faced individual risks, appropriate plans were implemented to keep them safe whilst promoting their independence. Staff supported people in a way that encouraged them to maintain and develop skills. People were regularly offered choice and involved in decisions about their care.

Staff supported people safely following incidents. Staff understood their roles in safeguarding and responded appropriately where they identified concerns. The provider analysed all accidents and incidents and responded to any trends that they found. The provider was open and transparent when dealing with relatives, healthcare professionals and CQC. Regular audits were carried out to monitor the quality of the care that people received.

People’s medicines were managed and administered safely, by trained staff. Staff supported people to access healthcare professionals whenever this was required. The provider had built links with local community organisations and agencies. People were supported by kind and respectful staff who were mindful of people’s privacy and dignity whilst providing care.

People were supported by staff that were trained to carry out their roles. Staff felt supported by management and had regular one to one meetings with their line managers and regular team meetings. Staff were able to make suggestions about the running of the home that led to improvements for people. There were clear leadership structures at the home and systems were in place to enable effective communication between staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 February 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people were routinely assessed with clear plans to keep people safe. Where incidents had occurred, staff responded appropriately.

Staff understood their roles in safeguarding people from abuse.

People�s medicines were managed and administered safely. The provider had robust systems in place to reduce the risk of infection control.

There were enough staff to safely meet people�s needs. The provider had carried out appropriate checks on staff to ensure that they were suitable for their roles.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 February 2018

The service was effective.

People�s legal rights were protected because staff followed the correct legal process as outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were served foods that they liked and that met their individual dietary needs.

People were supported to access the healthcare that they needed and staff worked alongside relevant agencies to meet people�s health needs.

People received a thorough assessment before coming to live at the home and individual needs and choices were documented and met.

People were supported by staff that had received appropriate training to carry out their roles with confidence.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 February 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff that they got on well with.

People were routinely involved in their care and staff offered people choices each day.

Staff provided support in a way that encouraged people�s independence. People were supported to maintain or develop skills.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People had access to a range of activities� that reflected their interests.

People�s care was planned in a person-centred way. People�s wishes regarding end of life care were documented.

People were informed about how to raise a complaint and the provider regularly asked people for feedback.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 February 2018

The service was well-led.

Regular audits were undertaken to measure the quality of the care that people received. The provider regularly implemented improvements to the service.

There was clear leadership at the home and staff told us that they felt supported by management.

The provider had developed links with local organisations and agencies and people benefitted from these.

The provider maintained communication with relatives, professionals and CQC in an open and transparent way.