The Grange – Gloucester Lodge is a residential care home for accommodating up to 16 adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities or a brain injury. The home is split into three units. Cedars with five people, Willows with six people and Maples with five people living in the home, which meant there were 16 people living at the home at the time of inspection. People had varied communication needs and abilities. Some people were able to express themselves verbally; others used body language, Makaton (type of sign language) or a few key words to communicate their needs.
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. There was a manager in post, and they were in the process of registering with CQC.
People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns
Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks like personal care, activities and the environment and were updated frequently.
There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were recruitment practises in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people.
People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.
People’s human rights were protected as the registered manager ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. Where people were assessed to lack capacity to make some decisions, mental capacity assessment and best interest meetings were evidenced.
Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected. Staff were heard to ask peoples consent before they provided care
People had sufficient to eat and drink. People were offered a choice of what they would like to eat and drink. People’s weights were monitored on a regular basis and people were given extra support with portion control if needed.
People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.
Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place to meet people’s needs. There was an induction programme in place which included staff undertaking the Care Certificate. Staff received regular supervision and all staff had recently received an appraisal.
People were well cared for and positive relationships had been established between people and staff. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.
People and their relatives were involved in planning peoples care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the manager knew people’s choices and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People received a personalised service. Care and support was person centred and this was reflected in their care plans. Care plans contained sufficient detail for staff to support people effectively. People were supported to develop their living skills to gain more independence.
People told us that the activities on offer had improved and they enjoyed the range of activities.
The home listened to people, staff and relative’s views. The management welcomed feedback from people and acted upon this if necessary. There was a complaints procedure in place which was followed effectively.
The home was well led. The management promoted an open and person centred culture. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. Relatives told us they felt that the management was approachable and responsive.
There were robust procedures in place to monitor, evaluate and improve the quality of care provided. Staff were motivated and aware of their responsibilities. The manager understood the requirements of CQC and sent appropriate notifications.