This inspection took place on 10 & 15 September 2015 and was unannounced.
Bedale Grange Care Home is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 20 older people. The service is situated in the market town of Bedale, located in a quiet residential area. The property is set over two floors and the first floor is accessed either by stairs or a stair lift, there is no passenger lift available. At the time of this inspection eleven people were living at the service, ten permanently and one receiving a temporary respite service.
The service had a registered manager, who had been registered with us since October 2010. 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. On the first day of our inspection the registered manager was on holiday, but the deputy manager was on duty. The registered manager was on duty for the second day of our inspection.
People using the service, and their relatives, told us they felt safe at Bedale Grange. People had individual risk assessments in place which ensured staff were aware of the risks relevant to each person’s care.
Staff knew how to report any concerns about people’s safety or welfare and had confidence in the registered manager taking appropriate action.
Overall the service’s premises and equipment were maintained in safe working order. We identified a potential safety issue with window restrictors during our visit, but we raised this with the registered provider and it was rectified during our inspection.
Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to provide the care people needed.
Medicines were safely managed and administered. However, we found that some improvements could be made to the records relating to medicines, to ensure that detailed information about the management of people’s medicine and a full audit trail was available.
Staff were supported to have the skills and knowledge they needed through relevant training, although induction records for a new member of staff were not available when we asked to see them. Regular staff appraisals had taken place and a new system for regular supervision was about to be implemented.
The service was following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At the time of the inspection no-one was subject to a DoLS authorisation, but the registered manager understood the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) and when they were needed.
People told us that the food was generally very good, with plenty of snacks and drinks available between meals if people wanted them. People’s dietary needs were assessed and monitored, with support requested from relevant health care professionals where there were concerns about people’s nutritional wellbeing.
We received positive feedback from health care professionals who told us the service worked well with them and provided a good standard of care to people.
People told us that they were well cared for and usually treated with dignity and respect. However, we received some negative feedback relating to the attitude of one member of staff and how this had made people feel uncomfortable. This was raised with the registered manager at the time of our inspection so that they could take action.
People had their needs assessed and had care plans which were individual to them. Care and nursing staff knew people well and were able to describe people’s needs.
People had access to activities and were involved in their local community, with an activities coordinator working in the service two or three days each week. However, people felt that social stimulation and activities were sometimes lacking when the activities coordinator was not on duty.
A complaints procedure was in place and displayed in the reception area. The registered manager encouraged feedback from people who used the service and their relatives, inviting people to come and speak with them whenever they needed to. They had also recently sent surveys to the relatives of people who used the service asking for feedback. Feedback was taken seriously and acted on promptly.
The service had a long standing and experienced registered manager, who was open and honest throughout the inspection. There was a strong staff team, with many staff who had worked at the service for a long time. Staff were committed to providing good care and felt well supported by the registered manager.
The service was allocated two and a half designated management days a week. Management staff felt they struggled to implement full management systems in the time available.
We found that governance systems could be improved and were not always effective. For example, formal audit systems had not been fully implemented, and some aspects of maintenance and record keeping could be improved. Some of the management information provided to us during the inspection visit was not the most up to date version available.
We identified a breach of regulation. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.