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.

This was an announced inspection which took place on 24 February 2016. We had previously carried out an inspection in July 2013. That inspection was to check whether the provider had made required improvements to the service. We found the service to be meeting the regulation we reviewed at that time.

Greave Project is based at Greave House and provides residential crisis and respite services for up to three people aged 18 and over who have a serious or enduring mental health problem. The service is available 24 hours a day. At the time of our inspection there were no people using the service.

The provider had a registered manager in place as required under the conditions of their registration with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and children. They were able to tell us of the action they had taken to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse. They told us they would also be confident to use the whistleblowing procedure in the service report any poor practice they might observe. They told us they were certain any concerns would be taken seriously by the registered manager.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were safely recruited although we noted the provider’s recruitment policy needed to be updated. There were a minimum of two staff on duty at any one time, one of whom was the identified crisis worker; this helped to provide consistency of care and support for people who accessed the service. However one of the four people we spoke with told us they considered staff now had additional responsibilities which mean they were less available to provide informal support. Staff demonstrated a commitment to providing high quality personalised care for the individuals who accessed the service. People were also supported to be as independent as possible and to carry on with their normal daily routines during their stay in the service.

Some improvements needed to be made to the way medicines were managed and recorded. People were encouraged to take responsibility for their own medicines whenever possible.

Regular checks took place to ensure the safety of the environment. Although we had no concerns regarding the cleanliness of the service, we noted the provider had not completed an infection control audit since the local authority conducted their audit in February 2015. The registered manager told us this audit process would be introduced as soon as possible.

Staff told us they received the training and supervision they needed to be able to carry out their roles effectively. Staff were able to demonstrate an excellent understanding of both the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Mental Health Act. We saw that arrangements were in place to ensure people who accessed the service were in agreement with the support provided.

Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service and felt valued by both colleagues and the registered manager. Staff felt able to raise any issues of concern or make suggestions to improve the service in supervision and staff meetings.

Care records we reviewed included information about the risks people might experience. People were assisted to develop support plans to manage the identified risks. People who had accessed the service told us staff provided the right level of support to meet their needs.

Food was not provided in the service. However staff would support people to access emergency food supplies when necessary. Staff told us they would try and encourage people to make health choices in relation to the food they bought.

People who accessed the service were asked to provide feedbac

We did not speak to any people as part of this follow up inspection.

We did not speak to any people using the service because they were all unavailable to provide comments at the time of inspection.

We spoke with one person who was using the services. They were happy with the care they had received and told us “The service is excellent, it’s been good; this experience has been a lifesaver and I am happy with the care.”

The person was complimentary about the staff and told us “The staff are always on-call, are humble and helpful. There are always staff present when I need them. ”