About the service: Greswolde Park Road is a residential care home providing personal care on a short-term respite care basis for four people with a learning disability at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were protected from the risk of abuse and risks to safety were assessed and managed. Staff were trained and able to support people’s needs.

People were treated with kindness by staff who knew them and understood their preferences. People could choose for themselves. People had their privacy and dignity respected and their independence was promoted.

People could access activities and do things they enjoyed. People, relatives and other professionals were involved in the planning and review of their care.

People’s views were sought about the care they received. The systems in place to monitor the quality of care were effective and actions plans were driving improvements.

The home had a positive culture and clear vision for supporting people and their families. The registered manager understood their responsibilities. Learning and partnership were encouraged.

The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas;

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published 7 July 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on previous rating.

This inspection took place on 10 May 2016 and was an unannounced comprehensive rating inspection. At our last inspection on the 23 July 2014, the provider was rated as ‘Good’.

Greswolde Park Road is a registered care home providing short term (respite) personal care for up to four adults who have a learning disability and other associated diagnoses. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the home.

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 were safe and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew what action they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm. The provider had processes and systems in place that kept people safe and protected them from the risk of harm.

Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.

People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.

People had a variety of food, drinks and snacks available throughout the day. They were able to choose the meals that they preferred to eat and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to stay healthy and had access to health care professionals as required. They were treated with kindness and compassion and there was positive communication and interaction between staff and the people living at the location. Staff were aware of the signs that would indicate a person was unhappy and knew what action to take to support people effectively.

People’s right to privacy were upheld by staff that treated them with dignity and respect. People’s choices and independence was respected and promoted and staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs.

People received care from staff that knew them well and while they were receiving respite care were supported to take part in activities and interests that they enjoyed, so that their lifestyle remained consistent.

The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided, to ensure that people were benefitting from a service that was continually developing.

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, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

Greswolde Park Road was last inspected in November 2013. At that time the provider met all the regulations we checked. This current inspection was unannounced which meant that staff did not know we were visiting.

The home provides periods of short term (respite) care to adults who have a learning disability. Up to four people can stay at the home. People’s stay could be flexible according to what was needed, and the home had occasionally responded to emergency respite requests.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Our observations and discussions with family members showed that there were positive caring relationships between staff and the people that used the service. We saw that people were treated with respect. We observed that people were relaxed with staff. All the relatives we spoke with told us that they were very pleased with the care that their relative received.

During the inspection the provider commenced the process of making the appropriate applications for people who used the service who may have had their liberty restricted.        

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were cared for during their stay. We found that people had their needs assessed before they stayed at the home. Care plans were in place and these were personalised. People’s health care needs were met with support by their main carer’s. However; relevant information was detailed in people’s care records to ensure continuity of care whilst in the home. Risks to people were identified and plans were in place to make sure people were kept safe during their stay.

People were supported to take part in hobbies and interests of their choice. These took place both in the home and in the local community. People were supported to maintain their usual links with their local community and where appropriate were supported to attend any day service placement.

We saw that systems were in place to monitor and check the quality of care and to make sure a safe environment was provided.  

The home offers periods of respite to adults with learning disabilities and other diagnosis. This allows family and carers and the person to have a break. Bookings are usually planned at the start of the financial year. The home has occasionally responded to emergency respite requests.

On the day of our visit three people were using the service. The people were out for most of the day participating in their normal daily activities. We spoke with two of the people on their return to the home. One person said “I do like it here sometimes, I do feel safe” another person said “I like it here, it is nice, they are good people and nice to you.”

We saw that people were treated with consideration, dignity and respect. We spoke with three members of staff. All staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs, likes, dislikes and preferences. We observed good interactions between the staff and people. All staff told us they thought people were well cared for and that they worked well as a team.

We found robust systems were in place to protect people from abuse. Quality checks were undertaken and feedback was sought from family members and carers, so that the quality of the service could be improved. The people were offered choices and were involved in daily decisions, so that they had the opportunity to influence the service that they received.

The home was clean, tidy and friendly with a calm, happy relaxed atmosphere so people had a comfortable place to stay.

There were four people receiving care on the day of our inspection. No one knew we would be inspecting that day.

During our inspection we spoke with all of the people who were using the service. Everyone we spoke with made positive comments about the service. One person said, “I really like it here. The staff are lovely”. Another person said, “I like coming here".

As people had complex needs and were not all able to tell us about the service they received we used different methods to help us understand their experiences, including observation. We observed good interactions between staff and people living there. People were smiling and looked happy.

We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity. They were given choices regarding daily routines to suit their preferred lifestyles.

People's needs had been assessed to ensure that their health, personal care and safety needs were monitored and met.

People were offered their preferred diet and fluids in amounts that prevented malnutrition and dehydration.

Staff received the training they needed and were provided with support to equip them with the skill and knowledge they required to safely look after the people in their care.

Records and staff both confirmed that systems had been used to monitor how the service had been run to benefit the people who used it.

We visited the service on 8 March 2012. There were three people staying at the service that night for a short period. All three people were out for the day at their usual occupation. We did not meet them. We followed the care of one person by looking at their records, their accommodation and talking to workers. We spoke to the person on the phone. We asked them what they thought about the home. They told us that they were there for 'respite' for a few days. We asked them if they liked it and they told us "no problems bab".

The person had up to date care records including an assessment of their needs and a care plan that was detailed and was individual to them. This was written in a 'person centred' way and was not just a list of tasks for staff to do to look after them. It included details about their medication and their health, their interests and work and leisure. They had daily welfare records.

We saw that each worker on duty on the day of our visit held an NVQ in health and social care at level three. They had also undertaken short courses specific to the care needs of some people who regularly used the service. They had updated training on safeguarding adults from risk of abuse and understood their responsibilities.

Workers were able to describe the needs of the person whose care we followed. They were familiar with the person's care plan and how the person should be supported while they stayed at the service. They talked about all of the people who used the service with warmth and respect.

There were sufficient workers on duty to meet the needs of people using the service including awake on duty in the home over night.

The home was clean, tidy and fashionably decorated. Each person had their own bedroom when they stayed. Rooms were large and people had space to gather together or to be away from each other as they chose. People had access to the kitchen and to the lounge and dining room and large garden. There was entertainment equipment in the lounge and also a personal computer set up in one bedroom.

We spoke on the phone to another person who used the service that week. They told us "I like it here."