We carried out a review of the data available to us about Falkland Grange Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Falkland Grange Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Falkland Grange Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for to up to 64 people. The service provides support to older people and younger adults who may also have dementia. At the time of our inspection, there were 52 people using the service. Falkland Grange Care Home is purpose built to support the delivery of care to older people and those living with dementia. The service is set across two floors, comprising individual rooms with en-suite facilities. The home has spacious external and internal communal areas, to encourage social interactions, including dining rooms, lounges, a fitness studio, cinema, coffee bistro and hairdressing salon.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff understood their responsibilities to raise and record safety incidents, concerns and near misses, and to report them internally and externally where required. The provider took prompt action to address lessons learned as a result of reviews when things went wrong. We have recommended management staff complete additional training to support their analysis and investigation of incidents.
People experienced safe care and were protected from avoidable harm by staff, who had completed safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report abuse. Staff assessed risks to people and managed them safely. Enough staff with the right mix of skills delivered care and support to meet people’s needs. Staff underwent a robust recruitment process to assure their suitability to support older people. People received their medicines safely from staff who had been trained and had their competency regularly assessed, in accordance with best practice guidance. Staff maintained high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the home, which reduced the risk of infection.
Staff assessed all aspects of people’s needs and ensured these were met to achieve good outcomes. Staff were supported to develop and maintain the required skills and knowledge to support people effectively, according to their needs. Staff understood the importance of eating and drinking well and reflected best practice when supporting people to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s care met their changing needs. People were supported to make decisions about their care and these choices were respected by staff. Staff knew how to comfort and reassure different people when they were worried or confused. People received information in a way they could understand and process, allowing for any impairment, such as poor eyesight or hearing. People were enabled to live as full a life as possible and were supported to take part in imaginative activities, which enriched the quality of their lives.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The management team promoted a strong caring, person-centred culture where people and staff felt valued. Staff were passionate about their role and placed people at the heart of the service. The management team understood their responsibilities to inform people when things went wrong and the importance of conducting investigations to identify lessons learnt to prevent reoccurrences. The registered manager effectively operated robust measures to monitor quality, safety and the experience of people and staff to drive continuous improvement of the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (report published 30 April 2021).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to a closed staff culture, insufficient staff, falls management, unsafe care and treatment, failure to record and report accidents and incidents to relevant authorities. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, effective and well-led only.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Falkland Grange Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the safe, effective and well-led sections of this full report.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Falkland Grange Care Home is a residential care service providing personal and nursing care to 38 old people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. This includes people living with dementia. The service can support up to 64 people.
The building is modern and purpose built, set across two floors. There are individual bedrooms with full ensuites, plus large open communal spaces comprising dining rooms, lounges, a cinema and hairdresser.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received safe care. They confirmed this when we spoke with them throughout the inspection. They were protected from abuse and neglect. Any risks to them were assessed, documented and mitigated to protect them from avoidable harm. Accidents and incidents were logged; the service showed they learned from these and had taken action to prevent recurrences. People and visitors were satisfactorily protected from COVID-19 during the pandemic.
Staff were knowledgeable and skilled. They competently provided the support people required. People and their relatives provided positive feedback about their experiences with staff. There was a thorough induction, training, supervision and performance appraisal system which enabled staff to progress their careers. The food, drinks and dining experience at the service was very good. There was a clear focus from the chef and other kitchen staff on ensuring variety and tasty dishes which stimulated people’s appetites.
People and relatives described the service as caring and staff as kind. They consistently provided complimentary feedback to us. This demonstrated they liked living at the service and the support they received. People’s human rights, dignity and privacy were respected. The staff and leisure and welfare programme helped promote and maintain people’s independence.
People’s care was specifically tailored to their individual needs. Care documentation showed in-depth information about people’s support needs; this was regularly reviewed with the full participation of people, their relatives and health or social care professionals. There was an extensive range of social activities, which prevent isolation and promoted people’s emotional health and psychological wellbeing.
The service was very well-managed. There was a clear, positive workplace culture. The registered manager with the assistance of the management team, ensured audits and checks were completed regularly to ensure the safety and quality of people’s care. The service and provider were receptive to feedback and implemented suggestions and improvements. People, staff and relatives had a genuine say in how the service was operated.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
This service was registered with us on 9 December 2019 and this is the first inspection.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The service had implemented a personal protective equipment (PPE) and sanitising station outside the main entrance of the home. When visitors came to the home, a designated member of staff supports the visitors to ensure they follow safe infection control, PPE guidance and to check whether they had any symptoms of coronavirus before entering the home. The staff member would then use a forehead thermometer to check the visitor’s temperature and spray the visitor and any bags or belongings with a safety approved water based sanitising spray.
¿ The service had set up covered seating areas around the gardens and grounds of the home that were used for relatives to visit their loved ones. On colder days the provider had purchased a clear screen which would be set up in a room so that people and their relatives could meet sitting either side of the clear screen to reduce the potential the risk of spread of infection. Visitors were required to book to see their loved one to ensure that visits were spread out to avoid the potential risk of transmission to other visitors and to allow the staff team to clean and sanitise the visiting area between visits.
¿ The home was observed to be clean and free of malodour. All communal rooms were cleaned and sanitised after each use. For example, if a person wanted to sit in one of the 'quiet lounges' they could do this at their leisure. When they decided they wanted to leave, designated cleaning staff would go into the room to clean and would inform care staff once this task had been completed. This included putting signage on the door to advise the room had been sanitised ready for the next person to use.
¿ Where people were shielding or self-isolating, PPE stations were set up outside the individual bedrooms. Each station was equipped with all required PPE in line with government guidelines and sanitising spray. Staff were observed appropriately donning and doffing their PPE before and after being in the person’s bedroom. There was clear signage on bedroom doors to inform staff and visitors that a person was shielding or self-isolating.
¿ All people being admitted to the home were tested by the care staff on admission. People were asked to self-isolate in their bedrooms until a negative test result was received. If people go out into the community such as for day trips, they are also asked to undertake a test on their return. The home was taking part in the ‘whole home’ testing approach. This meant that people living in the home were being tested for coronavirus on a monthly basis and staff were being tested weekly.
¿ The service had appropriate infection control policies and procedures in place. These were developed in line with current government guidance. There was prominent signage around the home for staff and visitors on what measures were being taken to minimise the risk of spread of infection and keep themselves and those around them safe. These were also communicated through email and on the providers website.
¿ Individual risk assessments had been conducted on people and staff which identified any vulnerabilities they may have in relation to coronavirus and any mitigating action that the provider needed to implement. Risk assessments were also in place for other activities. For example, close contact treatments and interventions such as podiatry and hairdressing.