Archived: Greenbank

Updated 4 June 2016

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 10 March 2016. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. Before our inspection, we reviewed the information included in the PIR along with other information about any incidents we held about the home. We contacted the commissioning and safeguarding adults officers of the local authority to gain their views of the service provided at this home. We contacted the local Healthwatch group to obtain their views. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

During the visit we spent time with each of the five people who lived there. We spoke with the registered manager and three support workers. With people’s permission we looked at some bedrooms and communal areas of the premises. We also viewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included the care records of two people, the recruitment records of three staff, training records and quality monitoring records.

Updated 4 June 2016

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Greenbank on 10 March 2016.

The last inspection of this service was carried out on 26 April 2014. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

Greenbank is a large detached family house set in a residential area near local shops and transport. The service is registered for five places and there were five people living there when we visited. The home does not provide nursing care.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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 told us they “liked” their home. They felt comfortable with the staff who supported them. Staff were clear about how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. They told us they were confident that any concerns would be listened to and investigated to make sure people were protected.

There were enough staff to assist people in the house in a safe way and to support people to go out to activities in the community. The recruitment of staff included the right checks and clearances so only suitable staff were employed.

Potential risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way, although it would be better if checks were kept of the temperature of the room where medicines were stored.

Staff had training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and deprivation of liberty safeguards to make sure they were not restricted unnecessarily. Staff asked for permission before carrying out care tasks. People told us they made their own choices about their daytime routines.

People told us they “liked” staff. We saw people actively sought out staff members to spend time with and chat about their day and plans for the next day. Staff spoke about people in a valuing and positive way, and supported them to play an active part in their local community. For example, people used local shops and pubs. One staff member commented, “I love going with them to the local [social] club. They have such a great time.”

People were supported to access healthcare services, such as GPs and physiotherapists when they needed these. People were fully involved in planning their menus and preparing meals. Each person’s nutritional well-being was assessed. They were encouraged to enjoy a healthy diet, but staff understood people could make their own choices about this.

People’s care was planned to make sure they got the right support to meet their individual needs. People enjoyed a range of vocational activities outside of the home. Two people did voluntary work and staff also helped people to find activities in the local community that they might be interested in.

People had information about how to make a complaint or comment. During this inspection a complaint about the service was raised. This was shared with the provider who carried out a comprehensive investigation and reported the findings back to the complainant.

People and staff had opportunities to comment on the service at any time as well as at regular meetings. Staff felt the organisation was run in the best interests of the people who lived there. The provider had a quality assurance system to check the quality and safety of the service provided.