We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Grove on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Grove, you can give feedback on this service.
The Grove provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people with a learning disability. At the time of our visit five people were using the service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
What life is like for people using this service:
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People who live at The Grove have their needs met by sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff. People’s told us staff were kind, supportive and enabled them to live as independently as possible.
Medicines were managed and administered safely. Shortfalls and errors were identified and acted upon.
Care records were very individualised and accurately reflected people’s needs in sufficient detail, including the specific routines staff needed to follow. Risks to people were identified, monitored and managed.
People were supported to live full and active lives, taking part in clubs and meaningful activities aligned with their specific interests.
People were offered a choice of meals which met their nutritional requirements. The risk of people becoming malnourished or overweight was identified, monitored and managed. People received appropriate support from staff to eat, drink and make healthy choices.
The quality assurance system in place to monitor the service provided to people was robust and capable of identifying areas for improvement. Positive comments about the management team were made by relatives and staff.
The service worked well with other organisations to ensure people had joined up care. People were supported to have input from external healthcare professionals in a timely way.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection (and update):
At the last inspection the service was rated Good. (Report published 25 May 2017)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
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.
People’s relatives felt people were safe living in the service. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely.
Relatives and other professionals felt there were enough suitably knowledgeable staff to provide people with support and guidance when they needed it.
Staff had received appropriate training, support and development to carry out their role effectively. Plans were in place to develop upon the skills and knowledge of the staff team.
People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.
The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). 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.
Relatives and other professionals told us staff were kind to people and respected their right to privacy. People were enabled and supported to live as independently as possible..
Relatives and other professionals were encouraged to feed back on the service and felt able to share any comments or concerns with the management.
People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People’s relatives and other appropriate professionals were actively involved in the planning of their care. People were enabled to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.
Relatives knew how to complain and felt they would be listened to.
The registered manager promoted a culture of openness and honesty within the service. Staff, relatives and other professionals were invited to take part in discussions about shaping the future of the service.
There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
We inspected on 11 March 2015. The Grove provides accommodation and personal care for up to 5 people with a learning disability. There were 5 people using the service when we visited.
A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
People were kept safe and their needs were met as there were enough suitably qualified, trained and supported staff available.
There were arrangements in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse, and staff were aware of these arrangements. People’s medications were stored and administered safely.
People were protected from the risks of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care because staff received sufficient training and support to carry out their role.
Staff had a knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and told us how they applied this in their caring role. This protected people from the risk of having their liberty unlawfully restricted. The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People were supported to make choices about what they ate, participate in the preparation of their meals and were supported by staff to eat and drink sufficient amounts.
Staff knew the people they cared for well, and interactions between staff and people were caring, kind and empowering. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.
People’s representatives advocates were given the opportunity to participate in care planning and provide feed back on the service. They were supported to make complaints about the service when they were unhappy about the care being provided.
Care plans for people contained individualised information about their needs. Staff responded to people's needs in a timely manner and people were supported to enjoy activities throughout the inspection.
A complaints procedure was in place and people’s advocates knew how to make complaints. The service had not received any complaints at the time of our inspection.
The management had in place a robust quality assurance process that identified issues in service provision. The management of the service promoted a positive and open culture with care staff and was visible at all levels. They showed a commitment towards the continual improvement of the care people received and had plans for further developing the skills of the staff team in future.
We considered our inspection findings to answer five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? and is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found during our inspection;
Is the service safe?
We found that each person had a full and in depth assessment of their needs. These assessments were reviewed regularly and directly informed care planning for these people.
Each person had a set of care plans, which set out how staff should meet their needs. These care plans were written in such a way that promoted people's independence.
The service had carried out risk assessments for each person using the service. These risk assessments were personalised to the risks to the individual. Risk assessments contained information for staff about how to minimise the risks to people.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that the service was failing to assess people appropriately which meant we were not assured that people's rights were being protected.
We reviewed the staff rotas for the two months prior to our inspection. We found that there were enough staff members on shift during this time to meet people's needs.
Is the service effective?
People using the service, their relatives and their advocates had been asked for their views about the service. This information had been collated and tracked for trends in feedback. We found that changes were implemented as a result of what people said.
Is the service caring?
Care records showed that people's care was planned and delivered in a way which promoted their dignity and ensured their safety and welfare. These records had been reviewed and updated as needed, and we were assured that people's needs were being met.
We observed how staff interacted with one person present during our inspection. We found that staff interacted with this person in a way which reflected the information in their care records.
Is the service responsive?
Records showed that people using the service were supported to receive input from health professionals in a timely manner.
Is the service well-led?
We found that there was an effective process in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify issues. A senior member of staff from the organisation visited the service regularly and carried out a full audit of the quality of service provided to people. Actions were put in place following this audit, where necessary, and were followed up by senior staff.
Peoples needs were assessed and risks associated with their care were assessed. These were recorded in people's individual care plans and regularly reviewed.
There was an effective recruitement procedure in place and appropriate checks were carriied out on before staff began work in the service.
We met the four people who used the service. We spoke with one person who told us that they were happy with the service they were provided with. We asked if the staff treated them with respect and they said, "Yes." The person told us about the activities that they participated in which included, "I like to go to the pub to eat," and, "I go on the bus." They said, "I choose what I want to do."
We looked at four people's care records and found that they identified the care and support provided to meet their needs.