Archived: Granville Court Care Home Limited

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they felt safe and staff had received suitable training about protecting vulnerable adults.

The provider had good arrangements in place to ensure that new members of staff had been suitably vetted and that they were the right kind of people to work with vulnerable adults. Accidents and incidents were responded to appropriately.

People told us they had support from "lovely, kind staff". The registered manager kept staffing rosters under review as people's needs changed. We judged that the service employed enough staff by day and night to meet people's needs.

People and their relatives told us staff understood their needs. Staff were appropriately inducted, trained and developed to give the best support possible. We met team members who understood people's needs and who had suitable training and experience in their roles.

People were happy with the arrangements for medicines support. Medicines were suitably managed with people having reviews of their medicines on a regular basis.

People saw their GP and health specialists whenever necessary. Staff took the advice of nurses and consultants. The staff team had good working relationships with local GP surgeries.

Staff carried out assessments of need and reviewed the delivery of care for effectiveness. They worked with health and social care professionals to ensure that assessment and review of support needed was suitable and up to date.

People told us they liked the food provided. Nutritional planning was in place and special diets catered for appropriately.

Granville Court is an older property that has been modernised and adapted to meet the needs of the 11 people living there. The house was warm, clean and comfortable on the day we visited. The home had equipment in place to support care delivery.

The staff team were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us that the staff were caring. We also observed kind and patient support being provided. Staff supported people in a respectful way. They made sure that confidentiality, privacy and dignity were maintained.

Risk assessments and care plans provided detailed guidance for staff in the home. People in the service or their relatives, as appropriate, had influenced the content. The registered manager had ensured the plans reflected the person- centred care that was being delivered.

Staff could access specialists if people needed communication tools like sign language or braille.

People told us they enjoyed the activities, interests and hobbies on offer.

The service had a quality monitoring system and people were asked their views in a number of different ways. Quality assurance was used to support future planning.

We had saw that the registered manager could deal with concerns or complaints appropriately. There had been no complaints in this service.

Records were well organised, easy to access and stored securely.

Rating at last inspection: Good (8 September 2016)

Why we inspected:

This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

We last visited this service in December 2013 where the service was non compliant in two areas. These two areas (Assessing and monitoring quality and Records) are now covered by Regulation 17 Good governance. We judged that these had been met at this inspection in August 2016 and the provider was no longer in breach of a regulation. .

Granville Court is an older property that has been adapted to provide accommodation for up to twelve older adults. The home is situated near to the centre of Maryport in a residential area close to shops and the railway station.

Accommodation is in mainly single rooms although there is one room that can be used as a double if people want to share. The first floor is reached by a stair lift.

The home is owned by a small private company. One of the partners is the registered manager. 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.

The staff and management of the home were fully trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff were confident that they could report any concerns appropriately. There had been no safeguarding issues in the service.

People felt safe and secure in the house and there were good risk management arrangements in place to ensure risks were minimised. Accidents and incidents were suitably managed. There had been no serious accidents in the home.

Staffing levels met the dependency needs of people in the home. The staff and people in the home told us that they felt the levels were suitable.

Recruitment was carried out correctly with all background checks in place. The provider had arrangements in place to deal with any disciplinary issues.

Medicines were being managed appropriately with suitable checks in place. Staff received training on medicines management.

Good arrangements were in place to ensure any infections were kept under control.

Staff received suitable induction, training and supervision to ensure that they were given support to develop in their role. Best practice was discussed every day as part of the normal routine of the home.

The registered manager understood her responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act. No one had been deprived of their liberty without due consideration being taken to this legislation. People were asked for consent before any interaction with staff. Restraint was not used in the service.

People received good health care support and told us that the meals they received helped them stay well. People received nutritious meals and their weight and general health were kept under observation.

The house had undergone a major refurbishment with new flooring, redecoration, a new kitchen and new 'wet rooms'. The small garden had been landscaped and people told us they enjoyed sitting out in good weather.

People in this home were supported by a caring staff team. They were given the privacy, dignity and respected afforded to them. Staff encouraged people to be supportive of each other. We observed staff working patiently with people and explaining any interventions carefully and discretely. Independence was encouraged.

People at the end of their lives were given good levels of support so that they could stay in the home to be cared for.

We saw that there were good, on-going assessments of care and support needs.

Care plans were written in a straightforward way and staff understood what the plans contained. We saw staff carrying out the care plans appropriately.

People told us they enjoyed the activities and entertainments on offer and everyone loved the "little dog" they considered to be the home's pet.

People in the home enjoyed spending time together and no one felt isolated.

There had been no formal complaints made but there were suitable policies and procedures in place in the home.

The home had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission and who had suitable levels of training, qualifications and experience to run a care home.

The home was run in an open and transparent way and both the staff and people who lived in the home understood that the home operated to benefit the people who lived there. The atmosphere was caring and supportive.

Simple quality monitoring was in place and the staff team told us that everything about the service was open and transparent.

There were audits in place of the service and suitable records in place.

We looked at a sample of records relating to the care and support needs of people who lived at Granville Court. We observed some of the care and support provided to people who used this service.

We found that although care and support needs were not accurately documented in care plans, we saw that people's needs were well known to the staff team on duty.

We spoke to some of the people who lived at Granville Court and to some of their relatives.

Comments from relatives included:

'I am very happy with the care and so is my relative. Residents at the home are loved by the staff and not just cared for.'

'I can't praise the staff enough. They regularly check on my relative to make sure they are OK or if they need anything. They are treated like a member of the family.'

People who lived in the home told us that 'Staff keep an eye on me to make sure I am alright. Care workers help me when I need them, day or night. I am quite satisfied here, it is a good home.' Another said, 'The staff are very good, they know what they are doing. They keep an eye on me and help me when I need them.'

A health care professional that was in the home at the time of our visit said, 'The home works well with us and we have a good relationship.'

During our visit we found that the home was clean, tidy, well maintained and was free from any unpleasant odours.There was a range of suitable equipment to help them meet the mobility needs and skin care of people who used this service. The home provided a warm and cosy environment for the people that lived there. A relative that we spoke to described Granville Court as 'homely.'

We saw that staff had been regularly supported with their work and provided with suitable training from a wide range of training providers.

The manager told us that the policies and procedures in place at the home were due to be reviewed and updated. We looked at a sample of these documents and found that they had not been reviewed for some time. Some of the information was out of date and, in some cases, did not reflect changes to legislation.

We met well cared for people who were very satisfied with the care they received:

"I can't fault these friendly and caring staff...I get really well looked after and I am glad I came in here."

"It is very good. I get lots of help and I am comfortable in my own room."

People enjoyed the meals and snacks provided:

"I love the food...nice home cooking and lovely cakes. They know what I like and I get it."

On the day of our visit no one had any problems with maintaining a healthy weight.

We looked at the way the medicines were managed and we found good systems in place. We also noted that people received only those medicines they really needed to stay well.

We checked the rosters for the home and spoke to people about staffing levels. We judged the staffing to be suitable to the needs of the people in residence. On every shift by day and night there were two staff to care for the eleven people in residence. Staff received suitable training and support to enable them to do their jobs.

We looked at how the service managed complaints. A small change was needed to the complaints policy and procedures. No one in the home had any complaints but told us:

"I am not frightened to speak up and they listen when I give my opinion."