Background to this inspection
Updated
31 October 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 inspection took place on the 24 September 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector, one assistant 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 type of care service.
When planning our inspection, we looked at information we held about the service. This included notifications received from the provider about deaths, accidents/incidents and safeguarding alerts which they are required to send us by law. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also contacted the local authority and commissioners of people’s care who purchase the care on behalf of people to ask them for information about the service.
During our inspection we spoke to seven people who lived at the home and used different methods to gather experiences of what it was like to live at the home. We also spoke with two relatives of people living at the home during the inspection.
We spoke to the nominated individual, the manager, the deputy manager, four care staff, the HR manager and the chef. We also spoke to one healthcare professional who was visiting the home. We looked at records relating to the management of the service such as care plans for six people, incident and accident records, medicine management records, two staff recruitment files and quality audit records.
Updated
31 October 2018
Grey Gables is a ‘care home’ which is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 40 people in one building. On the day of inspection, there were 37 older people living at the home, some of whom were living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 September 2018.
A registered manager was in post. A 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 registered manager was currently on an agreed period of extended leave so the provider had appointed an acting manager. CQC had been notified of this arrangement.
People were safe in the home. Risks had been assessed and staff knew what plans were in place to protect people from harm. Staff knew who to report concerns to and were confident that action would be taken by managers.
Staff had been safely recruited to ensure they were suitable to support the needs of the people living at the home. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.
Medication was stored correctly and given to people at the right times.
The principles of the MCA (Mental Capacity Act) had been applied. Deprivation of liberty safeguarding (DoLS) applications had been made and reviewed appropriately. Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to care and supporting people’s choices.
People’s health needs were promoted and people had access to healthcare professionals when required. People enjoyed the food at the home and were supported to maintain a healthy diet.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect by and were caring in their approach. Relatives felt welcome when they visited and were encouraged to express their views.
People’s needs and individual preferences were assessed, understood and met and their independence was promoted wherever possible. People were involved in planning their care.
Some monitoring systems and processes required further development to ensure people’s needs were met and staff fully understood how to support people in line with best practice guidance.
Staff had not completed all the required training in line with the provider’s policy but managers were aware of this and action was being taken to address these gaps.
The provider had given good support to both the manager and deputy manager who were ‘acting up’ in their roles.