This inspection took place on 10 March 2016 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 13 January 2014 and found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed. The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 15 adults with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, and on the day of the inspection there were 11 people living at the service. The home is located in Brandesburton, in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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. The registered manager was on leave during this inspection, and a senior support worker was overseeing the service in their absence with support from an ‘on call’ registered manager from another of the registered provider’s services.
During our inspection we identified one breach in regulation. This related to the cleanliness of some areas of the premises and equipment. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People told us that they felt safe living at The Granary and we found that people were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding issues. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.
People’s medicines were administered safely by trained staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.
Staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes and received a range of training opportunities. Staff told us they were supported so they could deliver effective care; this included staff supervision and staff meetings.
We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s individual needs, and to allow people to undertake their chosen activities.
People were supported to eat and drink enough and, where necessary, supported to access healthcare services. We saw that people were encouraged to make their own decisions and when they needed support to make decisions, these had been made in their best interests.
We observed that staff were kind, caring and attentive to people’s needs and people’s privacy and dignity were respected.
Care and support plans were reviewed regularly so that staff were aware of people’s changing needs and we saw that there were systems in place to assess and record people’s needs so that staff could provide personalised care and support.
There was a process in place to manage complaints that were received by the service. In addition to this, there were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the service, relatives, staff and other professionals.
We saw that the registered provider had a quality assurance system for the service, which included audits, action plans and service reviews. The registered manager monitored the quality of the service, supported the staff team and ensured that people who used the service were able to make suggestions and raise concerns.