Archived: Grosvenor Gardens

Updated 29 December 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.

This inspection took place on 24, 25 October and 1 November 2018. The first day was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors, a medicines inspector, and two experts by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using, or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to our visit we looked at the information CQC had received about the home and information sent to us by the provider. The local authority had been carrying out regular monitoring visits and informed us of their findings.

At this inspection we spoke with ten people who lived at the home, 12 relatives, the operations director, and 20 members of staff. We looked at a range of documentation including the care files belonging to five people who lived at the home, staff recruitment and training information, a sample of medication administration records and records relating to the management of the service.

We observed the care and support provided to people in the communal areas and visited some of their bedrooms.

Updated 29 December 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on 24, 25 October and 1 November 2018. Grosvenor Gardens is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This was the first inspection of the service since a change of ownership in October 2017.

The home is required to have 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. At the time of this inspection, the home did not have a registered manager.

The home is registered to accommodate up to 137 people and 86 people were living there at the time of this inspection. Accommodation was provided in four, single storey Villas. Orchid Villa accommodated people living with dementia who required nursing care; Lavender Villa accommodated people with enduring mental health needs; and Rose Villa accommodated people with general nursing needs. At the time of the inspection, Bluebell Villa was being used as staff accommodation.

The service was being managed by the provider’s Operations Director. They told us they had overseen the transfer of the service from Bupa to Cedar Care during the latter months of 2017 and early 2018. A manager had then been appointed but had now left the home.

During the inspection we identified a breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Staffing.

The Operations Director told us that a programme of basic training had been provided for new staff, but due to the considerable staff turnover over the last year, implementation of more in-depth training to give staff a better understanding of the support people needed and their responsibilities in terms of health and safety, had been delayed. Staff supervision records showed an inconsistent provision, with some staff having no individual support meetings.

During the inspection we observed that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs, however some of the staff and visitors we spoke with still considered that there were not always enough staff on duty. We recommend that the provider keeps this under continuous review.

People told us they enjoyed their meals and had enough to eat and drink. However, the meal served during our inspection was of poor quality and we saw a lack of choice and variety for people who required their meal to be of a soft texture.

Over the last twelve months, the nurses had been changing people’s care documentation from the previous provider’s system to the Cedar Care format. We saw that in one of the Villas this had been completed successfully, but this was not consistent across the service which meant that accurate and up to date information was not always available.

People we spoke with believed the home was safe. Maintenance records showed that regular checks of services and equipment were carried out by the home’s maintenance person and testing, servicing and maintenance of utilities and equipment was carried out as required by external contractors.

A programme of refurbishment was almost completed to provide people with a light, bright and pleasant environment. All parts of the premises looked clean and the kitchen had a five star food hygiene rating.

People’s medication was stored and handled safely, with minor issues identified for improvement.

A log of accidents and incidents was maintained and the records showed that appropriate action had been taken when accidents occurred.

The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard applications had been made to the local authority.

Many of the people who lived at the home, and their relatives, told us that the staff were kind and caring and provided them with good care and support. However, there remained a number of families who were dissatisfied with the service their relative received.

There was a planned programme of regular, varied social activities, including trips out, and we observed that this kept people occupied and stimulated.

Overall the evidence suggested that the service was making progress, but frequent changes of leadership on one of the Villas had led to delays in implementing the provider’s improvement programme. A number of quality audits were carried out regularly and these were accompanied by action plans for improvement as needed. People had been given the opportunity to express their views in a recent satisfaction survey.