This inspection took place on 6 June 2017 and 9 June 2017 and was unannounced.

Grandville Lodge is a residential care home for up to 19 older people some of whom may be living with dementia. When we inspected there were 18 people living in the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated good and at this inspection we found the service remains good.

There was a registered manager in post, however they were due to retire, and on annual leave until 23 June 2017. A new manager has been appointed. The deputy manager with support from the new manager was managing the service until the new manager is registered with the Care Quality Commission. The provider told us that the registered manager would remain in post in an advisory role for 12 months to support the new 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 were protected from the risk of harm and received a safe service. The service employed sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff to help keep people safe and to meet their needs. There was an effective medication management system in place and people received their medication as prescribed. People received their care from experienced, supported, well-trained staff.

The service ensured that people had the support they needed to have as much choice and control over their lives in the least restrictive way possible. People received sufficient food and drink to meet their needs and preferences and their healthcare needs were met.

Staff knew the people they cared for well and were kind, caring and compassionate in their approach. People were encouraged and supported to remain as independent as possible. Staff ensured that people were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was maintained at all times.

People were fully involved in the assessment and care planning process and their care plans were regularly updated to reflect their changing needs. People were encouraged and supported to participate in a range of activities to suit their individual interests. There was a good complaints system in place and people felt able to raise any complaints or concerns.

People were positive about the quality of the service. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to drive improvements. The new manager, deputy manager and staff were committed to providing people with good quality person centred care that met their needs and preferences.

The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 21 December 2015.

Grandville Lodge is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 19 people some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 19 people living in the service on the day of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 received their care and support in a way that ensured their safety and welfare. Staff had been safely recruited in sufficient numbers. They were well trained and supported to meet people’s assessed needs. People received their medication as prescribed and there were safe systems in place for receiving, administering and disposing of medicines.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to protect people from the risk of harm. They had been trained and had access to guidance and information to support them with the process. Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and the service had care plans and risk assessments in place to ensure people were cared for safely.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and appropriate applications had been made when needed.

People were supported to have sufficient amounts of food and drink to meet their needs. People’s care needs had been assessed and catered for. The care plans gave staff enough information about how to meet people’s individual needs and how to care for them safely. People’s healthcare needs were monitored; the service sought advice and guidance from healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff knew people well, they treated them with kindness and compassionate and their privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. People participated in activities of their choosing and were able to express their views and opinions. Visitors were made to feel welcome and people were able to receive their visitors at a time of their choosing.

People knew how to raise a concern or complaint and were confident that their concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

There was an effective system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and to drive improvements.

During our inspection on 14 October 2013 we found that cleanliness generally was poor, and there was a lack of systems in place to monitor this. When we inspected on 26 February 2014 we found that there were now cleaning schedules in place and systems to audit their effectiveness.

We spoke with four people using the service who were all positive about the level of cleanliness in Grandville Lodge. One person told us the service, “Seems clean enough.” Another person when asked about whether their room was clean told us, “Seems to be alright.”

People we spoke with were generally happy with the level of care and support provided at Grandville Lodge. One person told us that staff were good and they, “Look after us well.” One relative commented that they had chosen Grandville Lodge on behalf of their relative because, “Everyone seemed well looked after and happy.”

We saw that people's care and treatment was planned and reviewed with their involvement, where possible. Risks to people's health, welfare and safety were identified and well managed. Our visit showed us that the service was generally safe, responsive and caring.

We found that hygiene and cleanliness around food preparation, and staff awareness of infection control was good. However equipment and some areas of the home required more thorough cleaning to improve overall cleanliness and to protect people against the risk of infection.

We saw that equipment was maintained and available in sufficient quantities. Staff had received training in the safe use of equipment.

Staff were selected and recruited in a way that ensured they were suitably qualified and fit for the job.

Records relating to people and staff were kept securely and disposed of in line with the Data Protection Act 1998. They contained accurate, up to date information.

People living in Grandville Lodge Limited were able to talk to us to a degree, but not always able to fully express their views about their care or experiences in the service. We therefore used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We observed how people interacted with staff and management and spent time with people using the service. We also spoke with six staff members and two people that visited Grandville Lodge Limited, a relative and a professional. A relative told us that staff have, “…terrific patience.”

Visitors and people that were able to talk to us told us that the care was good. During our inspection we observed this and saw that staff treated people with respect. We reviewed four care plan files and found that there were systems in place for encouraging people to make decisions regarding the care and treatment provided for them.

We found that there were systems in place to ensure that there was sufficient staffing and that premises were safe and suitable for people using the service. There were various ways that relatives and people using the service could raise any concerns, complaints or compliments they had and staff took appropriate action as required.

All of the people who use this service have some difficulty understanding and responding to verbal communication. However some people were able to make comments about specific issues, such as the activities that they enjoyed and the care and attention shown by staff.

Visitors with whom we spoke confirmed that they were actively encouraged to become involved with the care provided in the service. They also reported that they were happy with the standard of care provided and confirmed that if they had any concerns they were able to approach staff who would address these matters in a prompt way.