Archived: Godfrey Olsen House

Updated 20 January 2016

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 12 October 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector. Before the inspection, we reviewed the information that we held about the service including previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We spoke with five people living at the home, and a family member. We also spoke to the manager, one care staff and the service manager. We observed the way people were cared for in their rooms and looked at records relating to the service including two care records, three staff recruitment files, daily record notes, maintenance records, audits on health and safety, accidents and incidents, policies and procedures and quality assurance records.

The previous inspection took place in April 2013 and there were no concerns identified.

Updated 20 January 2016

We inspected Godfrey Olsen House on 12 October 2015. The visit was unannounced. Godfrey Olsen House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a range of physical impairments and learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were six people using the service.

The service had recently appointed a new manager who was not yet registered. 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. There was also a team leader in post, as well as 13 other staff members.

People were well cared for and there were enough staff to support them effectively. The staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of the people and knew how to spot signs of abuse. People said they felt safe and supported by the care staff and provider. Processes were in place to check the staff they employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people and medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People felt involved and listened to. They contributed to what was written their care records and risk assessments. These were kept up to date and were an accurate reflection of the person’s care and support needs. The care plans included the person’s likes and preferences and were reviewed regularly to reflect changes to the person’s needs. People had access to healthcare services and were referred to doctors when needed.

The recruitment process records showed all necessary pre-employment checks had been completed. Staff received appropriate training and were supported through the use of one to one supervision and appraisal. All staff received a full induction which included essential training and appropriate checks had been completed prior to them commencing work. The service was supporting all staff to attend further training which would support their role.

People said the manager and staff were caring and felt they could go to them about anything and actions would be taken. Staff spoke to people in a kind, respectful and caring manner. There was an open, trusting relationship between them, which showed that the staff and provider knew the people well. Staff supported people as much as the person wanted them to whilst encouraging them to maintain their independence. Staff were offering people choices and respecting their decisions appropriately. People and their relatives were positive about the service they received. They praised the staff and care provided.

Staff felt they worked well as a team, and the manager provided support and guidance as they needed it. There was an open and transparent culture which was promoted amongst the staff. This allowed them to learn from incidents and changes were made to the service following feedback from people, their relatives and staff.

People and their relatives were able to complain or raise issues on an informal basis with the registered manager and were confident these would be resolved. The manager demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of effective quality assurance systems. There was a process in place to monitor quality and to understand the experiences of the people who used the service. There was regular contact between the provider, manager, people, relatives and the staff.