Archived: Greave Project

Updated 7 July 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 was a comprehensive inspection. The inspection took place on 13th June 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location currently provides a service to two people and we needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors from the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Prior to the inspection we looked at information we had about the service in the form of notifications, safeguarding concerns and whistle blowing information. We also received a provider information return (PIR) from the provider. This form asks the provider to give us some key information about what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

Before our inspection we contacted Rochdale Local Authority commissioning team and the local safeguarding team to find out their experience of the service. We also contacted the local Healthwatch to see if they had any information about the service. Healthwatch England is the national consumer champion in health and social care. This was to gain their views on the care delivered by the service. We did not receive any negative comments.

During the inspection we spoke with a registered manager, three members of staff and a Care Coordinator from Adult Care services in Rochdale. We spoke to two people who were using the service and looked at two care plans. We looked at three staff personnel files, training records for all staff, staff supervision records, monthly client satisfaction surveys, a selection of team meeting minutes, monthly records of audits and other documents related to the inspection.

Updated 7 July 2018

Greave Project is a residential mental health crisis unit for adults who are experiencing a mental health crisis. It provides up to three placements for adults requiring support to manage their crisis as an alternative to hospital admission. The unit consists of four studio apartments within a block of flats. Three of the studios apartments are for individual use and contain a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and lounge area. One of the apartments is used as a quiet communal lounge. Within the building there is a staff sleep room, a shared laundry facility, a staff office, a manager’s office and a large communal lounge.

At our last inspection the overall rating of the service was ‘good’. At this inspection we found that evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’ and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The last inspection reported that the safe domain ‘required improvement’. Improvements were needed to ensure the safe handling of medicines. The service was able to demonstrate during our inspection that the administration of medications was now safe.

At the time of the inspection there were two people using the service.

There was an appropriate safeguarding policy and procedure in place and staff had received training and were clear about their roles when asked about this during the inspection visit.

Staff were recruited through a robust procedure and there was a settled team in place with a low turnover of staff.

There was an open team culture that enabled the service to quickly identify and investigate any errors or concerns.

The care and support was delivered within current legislation, standards and evidence based guidance was readily available.

The staff team were experienced and had access to appropriate training.

Peoples support needs had been thoroughly assessed. Care plans demonstrated their involvement and care plans were flexible and could be altered to suit the persons changing needs.

The service produced a comprehensive welcome pack designed by people who had used the service and by staff.

The complaints procedure was accessible and there had been no recent formal complaints. The service had received several compliments from people who had used the service.

The service was well-led. Staff and people who had used the service reported that the registered manger had a visible presence in the service and felt supported by them.

Feedback from people who had used the service was routinely collected at discharge and was collated and analysed.

The service was committed to continuous improvement. Audits and quality checks were undertaken on a regular basis and any issues or concerns were quickly addressed with appropriate actions.