Greenwood Cottage

Updated 29 November 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 was carried out by one inspector on 27 October 2017 and was unannounced.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the contents of notifications received by the service. An up to date Provider Information Return (PIR) had been sent to us in December 2016. 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.

During this inspection we spoke with three people who used the service, two relatives, two care staff the deputy manager and the two registered managers.

We reviewed two care records, two staff personnel files and other records relating to the overall management of the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 29 November 2017

The inspection took place on the 27 October 2017 and was undertaken by one inspector. Greenwood Cottage is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who may have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder.

At the last inspection in October 2015 the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. However the registered manager had resigned from the service and a new registered manager had been appointed.

People told us they felt safe living in the service and we observed there were measures in place to keep people safe. Risks to people were appropriately assessed and managed. Staff were aware of how to identify and report any concerns they had about people’s wellbeing. Staff had been recruited through a robust recruitment process and there were adequate staff on duty to meet people’s needs in a timely way. People were supported to take their medicines by staff who were appropriately trained and had their competency checked.

Staff had received appropriate training, support and development to carry out their role effectively. We saw that staff had access to regular training relevant to their roles. Staff had individual supervision with their manager. This gave them an opportunity to discuss their development and any issues or concerns relevant to their work at Greenwood Cottage.

People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration. People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink regularly. We observed people helping themselves to drinks and snacks as well as staff offering those who were unable to help themselves.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) and MCA. 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 were aware of the need to obtain peoples consent and offer choices to people to enable them to keep control of their lives as much as they were able.

People told us and we observed that they were treated with kindness by staff who respected their privacy and upheld their dignity. Relatives confirmed how kind staff were and how their relatives had thrived and improved since coming to live at Greenwood Cottage.

People were given the opportunity to feed back on the service and their views were acted on. Staff supported people to be involved in how the service operated.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs. People were given appropriate support and encouragement to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.

People told us they knew how to complain and were confident they would be listened to if they wished to make a complaint.

The managers worked hard to create an open, transparent and inclusive atmosphere within the service. People, staff and relatives were involved in discussions around how the service was run.

There were robust quality assurance systems and processes in place and any shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.