Archived: Kelvin Grove

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People were safe and the provider had effective systems in place to safeguard them. Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and keep people safe. People felt safe living at the service. There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to the staff on how risks to people could be minimised. People’s medicines were managed safely and administered in a timely manner by skilled and trained staff.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had supervision, support and effective training that enabled them to support people well.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported to have sufficient food and drinks and were supported in a caring and respectful manner. They were also assisted to access other health and social care services when required.

People’s needs had been assessed, and support plans took account of people’s individual needs, preferences, and choices. Independent living was key and people were supported to move into independent living facilities.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people or their representatives, and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.

The registered manager provided stable leadership and managerial oversight to staff who felt supported in their roles.

There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to drive continuous improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. We saw that the provider ensured that people were cared for in an environment that was safe and well maintained. People's needs had been assessed, and risk assessments described how any identified risks to people were minimised. People were also protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained. The food was stored and prepared in a way that protected people against the risks associated with food poisoning. We saw that the medicines within the home were stored, administered and disposed of safely.

Is the service effective?

Detailed care plans were in place, and people told us their needs were being met. Staff received training to support people with various care needs. They also sought additional support from other health and social care professionals, to ensure positive care outcomes for people who use the service. The service provided people with adequate and nutritious food and drink that ensured they maintained good health.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with the staff, that they had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. People told us the staff were caring. One person said, "The staff are nice and they support me well."

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

We observed that staff responded promptly to people's needs. We saw that care plans had been updated when people's needs changed, and that referrals had been made to other health and social care professionals when required. The service took account of individual preferences, and people were supported to access a variety of activities of their choice.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post. However, they were not present during our inspection. A senior care worker, who also acted as the deputy manager, provided the information we required during the inspection. The manager also promptly sent the information we had requested from them. We saw that the provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service they provided. They regularly sought the views of people using the service and their representatives, and took account of these to improve the service.

We spoke with three people who told us they were happy with the care and support they received from the staff, with one adding that they "love it here". Two of the people we spoke with, told us they felt supported in their recovery journey and they were learning new skills to help them to live independent lives in the future.

We looked at processes in place to ensure that consent was being obtained from people prior to providing care and support. We looked at people's care records and saw a number of documents in place to show that people were giving consent to their care and support.

We found the provider had robust recruitment processes so that people were protected. We spoke with three staff who worked at the home, who told us they received a lot of support and guidance from the manager. They received appropriate training and were effectively supported in carrying out their job role. The staff records we reviewed also showed evidence of staff training and support.

We saw that a complaints process was in place and information on how to complain had been made available to people living in the home.

During our visit we found people's contribution to discussions and decision making about their care to be well documented. We saw that people received an assessment of their needs and these were updated in most cases we looked at. We saw that an adequate staff team was available to meet the needs of the people who use the service. Staff were completing a program of mandatory training and were knowledgeable in such things as protecting people from the risk of abuse.

We found that the service had quality monitoring systems in place and people had a variety of methods available for them to share their views and opinions about the service. We noted that where actions to prevent the recurrence of incidents or changes to improve the service were required these were completed.

One person said of her experience at Kelvin Grove: "The staff are really supportive and I've come a long way since I arrived here".