Archived: Larchwood Grove

Updated 26 January 2018

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 comprehensive inspection took place on the 4 January 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of an inspection manager, an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to the inspection, we looked at previous inspection reports and notifications about important events that had taken place at the service. We also asked the provider to complete 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 improvements they plan to make. The provider returned a PIR within the set time scale.

During this inspection we spoke with four people using the service and four of their relatives to gain their views about the service. We spoke with four members of staff on the day of our visit. They included the registered manager, two senior support workers, one support worker and one cleaner. We observed the interactions between people who used the service and staff throughout the day . People used verbal communication and used a mixture of sounds, gestures and signs to communicate their needs.

We reviewed the care records of four people that used the service which included their care plans, health and medication records, risk assessments and daily care records. We also looked at the recruitment records for five members of staff to see how the provider operated their recruitment procedures. Other records we examined related to the management of the service and included staff rotas, training and supervision records, quality audits and service user feedback, in order to ensure that robust quality monitoring systems were in place.

We also viewed the safeguarding, recruitment, infection control, medicines and complaints policies.

Updated 26 January 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on the 4 January 2018 and was unannounced.

This 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.

Larchwood Grove is privately owned, providing personal care and accommodation for up to ten adults with learning disabilities. There were ten people living at the service at the time of the inspection. People had complex needs, including mental health and physical health needs.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

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 continued to feel safe. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm and risks to people were assessed and monitored regularly.

The premises continued to be appropriately maintained to support people to stay safe. Staff understood how to prevent and manage behaviours that the service may find challenging.

Staffing levels ensured that people's care and support needs were continued to be met safely and safe recruitment processes continued to be in place.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS applications had been made to ensure that people were only deprived of their liberty, when it had been assessed as lawful to do so. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to support people's best interest if they lacked capacity.

People's needs and choices continued to be assessed and their care provided in line with up to date guidance and best practice. They received care from staff that had received training and support to carry out their roles.

Risks continued to be assessed and recorded by staff to protect people. There were systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service.

Staff continued to support people to book and attend appointments with healthcare professionals, and supported them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The service worked with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care and support.

Medicines continued to be managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines were suitable for the people who used the service.

Staff were caring and compassionate. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff ensured their privacy was maintained. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.

Systems continued to be in place to ensure the premises was kept clean and hygienic so that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

People's diverse needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of premises and they were involved in decisions about the environment.

The service had an open culture which encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive improvement.

There were policies in place that ensured people would be listened to and treated fairly if they complained about the service.

Quality assurance audits were carried out to identify any shortfalls within the service and how the service could improve.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.