Archived: Gracewell of Sway

Updated 12 April 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 20 and 21 February 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this kind of service.

Before this inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also checked other information we held about the service including previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We spoke with 12 people who used the service and six visitors and relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, the provider’s operation manager, deputy manager, two team leaders, chef, maintenance manager, and four care staff. We looked at a range of records which included the care records for six people, medicines records and recruitment records for five care staff. We looked at a range of records in relation to the management of the service, such as health and safety, minutes of staff meetings and quality assurance records.

Some people were not able to verbally communicate their views with us or answer our direct questions. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Following the inspection we also received feedback from two external healthcare professionals.

We last inspected the home in August 2015 where no concerns were found. The home was rated as good in all domains.

Updated 12 April 2018

This inspection took place on the 20 and 21 February 2018.

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

Gracewell of Sway provides accommodation and personal care for up to 68 older people some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 54 people living at the home at the time of this inspection. Accommodation at the home is provided over three floors. There are large gardens and patio area’s which provide a safe and secure private leisure area for people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe living at Gracewell of Sway they were very much at the heart of the service. We received consistent positive feedback from people’s families and health professionals. People’s families felt the service went above and beyond and were extremely experienced at looking after people living with dementia. People received excellent care that was based around their individual needs and that ensured care was personalised and responsive.

Staff enjoyed working at the home and understood the needs of people using the service and supported people in a personalised way. Staff knew people well and we saw that care was provided respectfully and sensitively, taking into account people’s different needs.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

The risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies and fire safety checks were carried out.

The home allowed people to bring their pets and people and their families gained great comfort from interacting with their pets at the home.

People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction programme before being permitted to work unsupervised.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices. Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their rights were protected and their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

A complaints procedure was in place. There were appropriate management arrangements in place. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

The home developed and promoted community involvement within the home. People, their families and staff took part in the local carnival procession.

The registered manager maintained a high level of communication with people through a range of newsletters and meetings. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people and their families to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service. People felt listened to and a complaints procedure was in place.