Archived: St George's Glatton Hall

This inspection was undertaken by one inspector. At the last inspection on 19 May 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service and to keep them safe. This included assisting people safely with their mobility and with their medicines.

There was sufficient numbers of staff on duty who had received training to safely assist and support people. The recruitment and selection procedure ensured that only suitable staff were recruited to work with people using the service.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have choice and control over their lives as much as possible.

People’s needs were assessed, so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. The management and care staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. Staff offered people choices such as how they spent their day and the meals they wished to eat. These choices were respected and actioned by staff.

There was a variety of activities and interests available for people to take part in so they did not become socially isolated.

People received appropriate support to maintain a healthy diet and be able to choose and help prepare meals they preferred. People had access to a range of health care professionals, when they needed them.

Staff were clear about the values of the service in relation to providing people with compassionate care in a dignified and respectful manner. We observed staff supporting people in a respectful and dignified manner during our inspection.

The provider had processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People had been consulted about how they wished their care to be delivered and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were provided with the opportunity to give their feedback about the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Is the service caring?

We talked with people who used the service. All of these people communicated or told us that they were well cared for and that care staff always treated them with dignity and respect. We saw from the plans of care we looked at that people were involved as far as practicable in developing their care and support needs and how these were met. Reviews of people's plans had been completed regularly and ensured that people were only provided with care based upon their most up to date care information. Relatives and people we spoke with confirmed to us that they had a positive experience of using the service. One relative said, "I can't believe how lucky I am that mum has such a wonderful caring place to live. It is such a weight off my mind."

Is the service responsive?

We saw that following an assessment of people's needs, their care plans were reviewed with the person and that changes were made to reflect accurately what the person's needs were and how staff reliably met these. This ensured that people were provided with person centred care and support. People had made and were supported with their choices on things such as the food they liked, the time they wanted to get up and go to bed, social and other planned activities. People were referred to their health care support professionals such as their GP, speech and language therapist or for regular health check-ups where the person required this. We saw from the records we viewed that staff had qualifications appropriate to their role to meet people's needs in a reliable way.

Is the service safe?

We saw that regular reviews of people's assessed health risks, such as the use of bed rails, choking, vulnerability and mobility assessments had been completed. Checks completed by the provider and staff ensured that people's records, staff training, mental capacity assessments had been completed to ensure that people were safe. One person told us, "The one thing I really need to be is safe. That is exactly how I feel living here." Action had been taken following accidents and incidents to ensure that the potential for any recurrence was eliminated or significantly reduced. The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We saw that there were proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Staff had been trained on the implications of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 DoLS.

Is the service effective?

Staff we spoke with were able to tell us the detailed care needs for each person and also their preferences. Our observations of staff supporting people confirmed to us that people had a good experience of using the service. Quality assurance reviews which had been completed by the provider had confirmed that the majority of people were satisfied with the quality of care they were provided with.

Is the service well led?

All of the staff we spoke with told us that the manager was very good and always seemed to be planning in advance. Staff and the manager told us that if ever they had any concerns or something needed changing that action was taken as soon as practicable. We saw that there were on-going improvements to the premises and activities for people to partake in. Effective quality assurance systems were in place and concerns raised by people, staff and visitors were acted upon. Records we looked at had been checked at regular intervals to ensure people were only provided with care that they had agreed to.

All the people who lived in the home commented positively about the care that staff provided. One person said, "The carers are so kind." The relative of one person said, "I would have been unable to have an operation without knowing the care for my X (family member) was excellent. All the staff have been fantastic."

People said there was little to do during the day, although they said they would have sat outside if the weather had been better. Most people said they liked to spend time in their bedroom but went to the dining room for meals. Information in people's files showed that their interests had been recorded but not how those needs were being met.

People told us they liked the meals but were not sure if they could ask for an alternative if they did not like what was on the menu. They all said they had not asked for an alternative, although one person said, "I like sandwiches if the menu is quiche as I don't like it."

Staff said they felt supported by the manager and there were now regular supervision dates set aside. Staff said they had received all the necessary mandatory training and took part in further training about specific topics such as dementia, infection control and challenging behaviour.