At our last inspection we rated the service overall as 'good'. At this inspection we found the 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.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Grindon Short Break Service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Grindon Short Break Service is a residential respite service for up to ten people with a range of different needs.

Some people using the service had a learning disability. The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered 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, relatives and staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. They told us since the registered manager had started there had been significant improvements made to the service.

People, relatives and staff described the excellent care the staff provided. They used words such as “first class”, “brilliant” and “wonderful” to describe the service. They described staff as “kindness itself” and praised staff for the care they provided to family members. We heard about numerous occasions when staff went ‘above and beyond’ often at short notice to help people in crisis. People told us about how staff had supported them through these times and helped them to move forward with their lives. Staff were particularly skilled at empowering people to communicate and express their needs. This had developed over the years due to a stable and consistent team of dedicated staff.

People, relatives and staff said the service was a safe place.

There were enough staff on duty to provide care that reflected people’s needs.

The provider had effective recruitment systems to ensure new staff were suitable to work at the service.

Staff had a very good understanding of safeguarding and whistle blowing. They knew how to report concerns but said they had no concerns about people’s safety. Previous safeguarding concerns had been dealt with and investigated effectively.

People received their medicines when they were due.

The provider responded to accidents and incidents effectively. There were procedures to deal with unforeseen emergencies.

Staff told us they were well supported and received training relevant to their role. This included specialist training where people had particular health and care needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff supported people to meet their nutritional and healthcare needs in line with their particular needs. Staff had completed additional training to enable them to care for people with specialist eating and drinking requirements. Health professionals had been consulted to provide specialist advice and guidance when required.

People's needs had been assessed to determine what care and support they needed. P

This inspection took place on the 11 August 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we would be visiting. We last inspected this service on 4 December 2013 and found the service to be meeting all legal requirements we inspected against.

Grindon Short Break Service provides care and support for up to nine people who have a physical disability. At the time of the inspection there were three people having a short break at the service.

At the time of the inspection a manager was in post but they were not registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A different person was registered with the Care Quality Commission as the manager of the service but they were no longer 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 told us they felt safe and well cared during the time they spent at Grindon Short Break Service. One person said, “It’s like a hotel.”

Staff had the skills and knowledge to ensure they could meet people’s needs in a safe and sensitive manner. Staff were respectful of people’s wishes and one person said, “I’m well looked after.” As the number of people staying at the service varied according to who needed a short break at that time the staffing levels were managed in a flexible way. There was a minimum level of staffing in place but this was increased dependant on the number and needs of people staying at the service.

Care records were personalised and as there was a regular group of people who used the service all information was reviewed with people at the beginning of each stay, as well as their being feedback sessions at the end of each stay and an annual review for people.

Health professionals were involved in peoples care and we saw that manual handling assessments were completed by occupational therapists, and if people needed support with their nutritional needs speech and language therapists had been involved.

Relevant risk assessments had been completed and were reviewed in a timely manner. If there were any accidents or incidents they were investigated and plans put in place to minimise the risk that they could re-occur. If needed people were referred to specialists such as the falls teams.

People’s medicines were managed safely and we saw that some people managed their own medicines. This had been risk assessed and there were monitoring procedures in place. If a medicine error was made by staff, the staff member wrote a self-reflective account which supported them to assess their own performance and identify any area’s which could be improved upon.

Team meetings were held regularly and staff could add to the agenda any items they wished to speak about. Staff said they were well supported, had regular supervision and an annual appraisal but also felt they could approach the manager and the deputy at any time they needed support or guidance.

People were included in decisions about their care wherever possible and if someone had been assessed as lacking capacity we saw that applications had been made in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager explained that a plan was in place for making any future applications for people staying at the service where they felt it was necessary to do so. We saw that the manager had been proactive in seeking advice in relation to DoLS and mental capacity.

People were looking forward to the activities that had been planned for their stay, including a trip to Coronation Street which one person told us was, “A dream come true.” The assistant manager said they involved people in planning activities for their next stay so at the minute they were asking people what they would like to do during their Christmas break.

Service improvement was high on the agenda. Any concerns and complaints had been thoroughly investigated and responded to and we saw that apologies were freely offered to people alongside information on any changes that were going to be implemented as a result of the concern.

A variety of audit tools and quality assurance systems were used to monitor the service and action plan for any improvements that were needed. We saw that action plans were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure progress was being made.

We spoke with people and their relatives and they were happy with the service. One person told us “The staff are really approachable and will help you with anything. It is great to stay here. We plan every Monday what we will do for the week.”

A relative we spoke with said “I would never get a break if it wasn’t for Grindon Short Break Service. The staff are lovely, they are like friends and know my relatives needs very well. They make you feel very welcome.”

We saw that people were supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration. One person told us “If you do not like what is on the menu they will make you something different. There are always plenty of snacks”.

The home had processes in place to make sure that it was kept clean and hygienic and the provider could demonstrate that appropriate checks were in place regarding the recruitment and vetting of staff. There were systems in place to identify risks and monitor the quality of service provided.

We spoke to the people who were using the service. One person commented, “The staff are great” and another person commented, “I get spoilt by the staff”. One person told us “We have just been out for a meal I have thoroughly enjoyed myself” and another person told us “I have a great time during my stay I have a joke with the staff they know what I’m like”.

We asked some of the people about their care and treatment. Most people we spoke with made positive comments about their care they were being provided with. One person told us “I like it so much here I asked to stay longer” and “The staff are always well mannered”.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The people we spoke with told us they felt safe with their care workers and the care they were provided with. One person commented about their care workers, “I always feel safe here” and another person commented, “If I was worried about something I would tell … the manager straight away”.

We spoke to the people using the service and asked them what their views were on the premises, one person commented “It is like staying at a hotel” and another commented “The bedrooms are really lovely”.

We spoke to the people who were staying at the service and they made the following comments:

“The staff are very nice, they are great” and “They ask you what you want to eat”. ”If you want home made vegetable soup you just have to ask, they go out and buy the veg and then make it”. One persons commented “I have read my care plan” and another person commented, “Staff have shown me my plan". When asked if they felt safe at the service one person commented "I would tell the manager if I had any concerns".