Archived: Grove House

Updated 24 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.

The inspection of Grove House took place on 31 August and 3 September 2018 and was unannounced. One adult social care inspector carried out the inspection. We gathered and reviewed information before the inspection from notifications and information shared with us by local authorities that contracted a service. Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with three people that used the service, the registered manager and four staff that worked at Grove House. We looked at care files belonging to four people that used the service and at recruitment files and training records for three staff. We viewed records and documentation relating to the running of the service, including those for quality assurance and monitoring and management of medicines. We also looked at equipment maintenance records and records held in respect of complaints and compliments.

Updated 24 October 2018

This inspection took place on 31 August and 3 September 2018 and was unannounced. This is the first inspection of the service carried out following a change of provider and therefore the new provider's fist rating for Grove House. At this inspection the service was rated ‘good’.

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist 'extra care' housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements, with Hales Group and Anchor Housing respectively. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support.

All of the flats at the service were occupied, but only 15 people received a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. There were extensive communal facilities for people to use, including a café-type dining room, a laundry, assisted bathrooms and a hairdressing salon.

The provider was required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection there was a manager that had been registered for two months. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like 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 provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns, which protected people form the risk of harm. Staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities for managing safeguarding concerns. Risks were also managed so that people avoided injury or harm.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s need and rosters accurately cross referenced with the people that were on duty. Recruitment policies, procedures and practices were carefully followed to ensure staff were ‘suitable’ to care for and support people. The management of medication was safely carried out. Staff followed safe infection control and prevention practices.

People were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and had their personal performance monitored. Communication was effective, people’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights protected. Staff had knowledge and understood their roles and responsibilities in respect of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The registered manager followed the principles of the MCA and worked with other health and social care professionals and family members to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests where they lacked capacity to make their own decisions. People received support with nutrition and hydration to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People were supported by compassionate, caring staff that knew about their needs and preferences. People received information they needed at the right time and in the appropriate format. They were involved in managing their care and were asked for their consent before staff undertook care and support tasks. People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were respected and staff were mindful of these when they monitored the support people required.

Staff supported people according to person-centred care and support plans, which reflected their needs well and were regularly reviewed. People had the opportunity to engage in some pastimes and activities if they wished to that were facilitated in the communal areas. There was an effective complaint procedure in place and people had their complaints investigated without bias.

The culture and management style of the service were positive. There was an effective system in place for checking the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys, meetings and other communication methods. People made their views known through direct discussion with the registered manager or staff and by using the formal complaint and quality monitoring formats. People were assured that recording systems used in the service protected their privacy and confidentiality as records were well maintained and held securely on the premises.