Scott Hall Grove

Updated 23 May 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 checked 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 24 April 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was conducted by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the last inspection report, statutory notifications about incidents and events affecting people using the service. The registered manager had completed the Provider Information Return (PIR) and sent it to us. The PIR is a form that asks them to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with two people using the service at the time of the inspection. We telephoned and spoke with three relatives following the visit. We also spoke with a health care professional who was visiting the service at the time of the inspection.

We spoke with the registered manager and four care staff who were on duty at the time of the visit. We reviewed the care records for four people using the service including their support plans and risk assessments.

We looked at the management of medicines records including their storage and disposal. We also looked at five staff recruitment files and records related to the running of the service. These included maintenance records, checks and audits carried out to monitor quality in the service and make improvements.

Updated 23 May 2018

The inspection was completed on 24 April 2018 and was unannounced.

Scott Hall Grove is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is part of Aspire Community Benefit Society. The Respite Service supports people at in a specially designed building. The service offers an opportunity for people to have short breaks from their family and also gives family carers a break from their caring responsibilities. The home has 10 respite beds, of which five are dedicated to crisis/emergency stay. It is situated in a quiet residential area on the outskirts of Leeds.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with complex learning disability and nursing needs using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service good overall. However, we found improvements were required in the safe domain. This was because we were not able to check if appropriate recruitment and identification checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This was because some recruitment information was held centrally at the organisations main office.

At this inspection we found appropriate recruitment checks were in place. Overall the service continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

We received positive feedback from people using the service. We carried out observations to see how they were being supported and cared for. People told us they felt safe and the staff were respectful and observed their rights and choices. Feedback from relatives and health professionals was positive.

Staff received training to administer medicines safely. There were sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies to meet the assessed needs of people who used the service. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were encouraged to make decisions about meals, and were supported to go shopping. People’s dietary needs were catered for and we saw clear instructions were followed when a person had involvement from the speech and language therapist (SALT). Appropriate meals were provided for people from different cultural backgrounds.

People retained their own GP while staying at the service, but if needed the service could also access emergency services.

People could take part in activities of their own choice and there were also organised group activities such as trips to the coast and meals at local pubs.

Relatives and staff were happy with the way in which the service was run. The service was appropriately managed. There were comprehensive systems for monitoring the quality of the service. The registered manager and staff team listened to and learnt from the feedback of others to make changes and improve the service.