Martin Grange

Updated 6 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was 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 9 August 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection, because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location office when we visited.

The inspection was carried out by one Adult Social Care Inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is someone who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. The Expert by Experience supported this inspection by visiting and speaking with people who used the service and their relatives to understand their experiences and views on the service provided.

Before our inspection, we looked at information we held about the service. This included notifications sent to us since our last inspection. Notifications are when providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur within the service. We also contacted the local authority’s adult safeguarding and commissioning teams to ask if they had any relevant information to share.

We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) and this was returned to us within the agreed timescale. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection, we visited and spoke with four people who used the service and one person’s relative. We spoke with the registered manager, team leader, two care workers, the chaplain, cook and a member of staff who was responsible for organising activities.

We reviewed three people’s care plans and risk assessments, three staff recruitment and training records, meeting minutes, medication administration records, audits and a selection of records relating to the running of the service.

Updated 6 October 2017

Martin Grange is a sheltered housing complex made up of 33 ‘retirement apartments’. People who live at Martin Grange either own these apartments or are tenants of a private landlord.

Martin Grange is also the name of a domiciliary care service run by the provider Methodist Homes. They have offices at Martin Grange and provide care and support to some of the people who live there. The service also provides staff over a 24 hour period, to offer assistance in an emergency to anyone living on site.

The care provider Martin Grange is registered to provider personal care to older people, younger adults and people who may be living with dementia, a mental health condition, a physical disability, sensory impairment, a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection, they supported ten older people who were living at Martin Grange with personal care at prearranged times.

As people owned or privately rented their accommodation, the care provider was not responsible for the upkeep or the maintenance of the building or people’s own flats. As such, the accommodation provided was not within the Care Quality Commission’s remit to inspect.

We inspected the service on 9 August 2017. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection, because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location’s office when we visited.

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

The service had 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. The manager in post at the time of our inspection completed their application, following our site visit, and became the registered manager in August 2017. We have referred to the registered manager as ‘manager’ throughout our inspection report.

During the inspection, we found people who used the service were safe. Risks were identified and assessed to ensure staff provided safe care. Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. Systems were in place to ensure people received their prescribed medicines.

Staff completed regular training and received on-going supervision and support from the manager and team leader. 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 supported this practice. We have made a recommendation about recording around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the body of our report. Staff supported people to ensure they ate and drank enough and to access healthcare services when needed.

People consistently told us staff were kind and caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported to have choice and control over their care and support.

People told us staff were extremely attentive and responsive to their needs. The service was flexible and responded positively to people’s requests; supporting people to live how they chose, maintaining their independence and assisting them to engage in a range of meaningful activities to reduce the risk of social isolation. People who used the service were central to shaping the service provided and how their needs were met. People felt confident in raising any issues or concerns and there were effective systems in place to gather feedback to monitor and improve the service for the benefit of the people who used it.

People told us the service was well-led. There was a positive, open and person-centred culture within the service. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.