Bury Council - Falcon & Griffin Extra Care Scheme

This was an announced inspection which took place on 08 August 2017. In accordance with our guidance, two working days prior to the inspection we contacted the service and told them of our plans to carry out a comprehensive inspection of the service. This was to ensure a representative of the registered provider was available and able to provide the information we needed when we visited the service.

At the time of the inspection the scheme was providing personal care and support to18 people. In addition the scheme provides a service whereby they contact all the people in the flats and the bungalows on a twice daily basis via the intercom system. This was to check on people’s welfare and safety. We were told that two of the flats were also used as a ‘halfway house’ to enable an earlier discharge from hospital for people who, although medically fit, still required care and support.

Falcon and Griffin Extra Care Scheme has a registered manager who, due to authorised leave, was not present on the day of the inspection. 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 service was previously inspected in January 2015 when we found the registered provider was meeting all the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We saw that suitable arrangements were in place to help safeguard people from abuse. Guidance and training was provided for staff on identifying and responding to the signs and allegations of abuse. Staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of the whistle-blowing procedures (the reporting of unsafe and/or poor practice).

We found sufficient suitably trained staff, who were safely recruited, were employed to ensure people received the support they required. We saw that staff received the essential training and support necessary to enable them to do their job effectively and be able to care and support people safely.

The support staff had received medicine management training and we found the system for managing medicines within people's homes was safe.

Appropriate fire and environmental risk assessments had been completed for the communal areas in order to promote the safety of people who used the service, members of staff and visitors. Risks were also assessed in relation to general safety issues within people's own homes. Procedures were in place to deal with any emergency that could affect the provision of care, such as, severe weather and a failure of the electricity and water supply.

We saw that appropriate arrangements were in place to assess whether people were able to consent to their care. The deputy manager demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions.

People's care records contained enough information to guide staff on the care and support required. The care records showed that risks to people's health and well-being had been identified, such as the risk of poor mobility and risk of falls. We saw that plans were in place to help reduce or eliminate any identified risk. People were involved in regular reviews of their care to ensure the care and support provided met their needs, preferences and wishes.

People told us they considered staff were kind, had a caring attitude and felt they had the right skills and knowledge to care for them safely and properly. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect.

To help ensure that people received safe, effective care and support, systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Systems were also in place for receiving, handling and responding appropriately to complaints.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There was enough equipment to promote the independence and comfort of people who use the service.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work to ensure they were suitable people to work with vulnerable adults.

We saw feedback from people using the service and their relatives from a quality assurance survey undertaken in February 2013. Comments included, 'I think carers are very polite and helpful, they are a good team and do a good job' 'The service is very reliable' and 'We have an excellent extra care scheme at Falcon and Griffin'.

If care workers had concerns about people's nutrition they kept a food chart and informed the person's GP. We saw that dieticians gave advice to care workers if a person required a modified or special diet.

People were involved in their care planning and signed to say they agreed with their care plans. Care workers were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and we saw that best interest meetings were held when specific decisions had to be made for people who had difficulty making their own decisions.

Care workers were provided with personal protective clothing to use when carrying out personal care. People confirmed that this was used appropriately. People also told us that staff visited them when they were expected. Staff said that if someone was unable to work at short notice another care worker would usually provide cover. We saw evidence that agency staff were accessed if necessary.

The service had a complaints process in place that people were aware of. We saw that complaints had been dealt with appropriately.