This unannounced inspection took place on 17 July 2017. The last inspection took place on 30 June and 7 July 2015 and we rated the service as ‘Good.’

The Grove is an eight bed care resource that provides a short break service to people with learning and physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection 62 people used the service and at least once per year their visits would range from a couple of days to a week long stay.

The registered manager had retired in April 2017. 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. We found that a new manager was in post who was completing the process to become the registered manager.

We observed staff practices and spoke with relatives as the majority of people who were using the service at the time of our inspection had limited ability to verbally communicate their views about the support they received. However, some people were able to share their broad ideas about how effective they thought the service was for them.

People and relatives told us they were happy using this short-break service and found that, despite people only using the service a couple of times a year, staff remembered what they liked and needed.

We found, as had the manager and provider, that work had been needed to ensure staff training, supervision, care records and quality assurance processes were completed and up to date. We saw that the manager had developed a comprehensive action plan, which detailed all that needed to be done and much of this work had already been completed.

People told us they felt safe and protected in the service. They said they were well looked after by the staff. Any risks they might encounter in their daily lives were assessed by the staff and actions taken to minimise any harm to them. Staff had been trained in safeguarding issues and knew how to recognise and report any abuse.

People received their medicines in a safe and timely way.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and support them to enjoy their stay. New staff were carefully checked to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

There was an established and experienced staff team who had a good knowledge of people’s needs and preferences.

We heard that the cook provided a wide range of nutritious meals and saw people enjoying their evening meal. Staff provided support in a sensitive manner.

Staff had received training about the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and ‘Best Interest’ decisions. The manager was in the process of developing bespoke training around what the expectations were when applying the MCA in short-break services.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. The provider told us they were developing new care records for the company and we discussed what type of records were needed in a short-break service.

Activities and outings were provided according to people’s preferences.

People felt involved in their care and support. They said they were encouraged to make choices about their lives and to be as independent as possible. People told us they had no complaints about their care, but would feel able to share any concerns they had with the staff.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. People and their family members were regularly consulted and their views were used to improve the service.

This was an unannounced inspection carried out over two days on 30 June 2015 and 7 July 2015.

We last inspected The Grove in September 2014. At that inspection we found the service was not meeting legal requirements with regard to the safety of the premises and monitoring the quality of service. At this inspection we found that action had been taken to meet the relevant requirements.

The Grove is an eight bed care resource that provides a short break service to people with learning and physical disabilities.

A registered manager was in place. 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 protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. When new staff were appointed thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care.

People received their medicines in a safe and timely way. People who were able, were supported to manage their own medicines.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

The menus were varied and staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and special diets that were required.

Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves.

Appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Care was provided with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.

Activities and outings were provided according to people’s preferences.

People were supported to maintain some control in their lives. This encouraged their involvement in every day decision making. They were given information in a format that helped them to understand if they did not read. A complaints procedure was available and written in a way to help people understand if they did not read. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain but they hadn’t needed to.

The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with people and/ or family members and their views were used to improve the service.

Staff and relatives said the management team were approachable. Communication was effective to ensure people were kept up to date about any changes in people’s care and support needs and the running of the service.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments were in place. Most risks to people who used the service, their relatives and staff were regularly assessed and appropriate steps were usually taken to minimise such risks. Appropriate action had not been taken however to minimise the risk of fire. People were supported and encouraged to maintain their independence and this was balanced with the risk to the person. Systems were in place for checking safety equipment and systems such as fire alarms.

Audits were carried out to look at accidents and incidents and the necessary action was taken to keep people safe. Information was available to show that the service worked with other agencies to help ensure people's health needs were met and to prevent admissions to hospital wherever possible.

Staffing levels were in place to ensure all the needs of the people who lived at the service were met in a timely way and to ensure their safety.

Is the service effective?

Some people could tell us they were happy with the care and support provided by staff. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well as individuals.

Staff had received regular training to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

An effective regular environmental audit was not in place to ensure the premises were safe and well maintained for the safety and comfort of people who used the service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff, who showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been carefully assessed before they started to use the service. Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests and needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them.

Is the service well-led?

The home had a registered manager in post. There was an ethos of involvement and it was apparent the manager was passionate about ensuring people who could not communicate and make their needs known verbally should be involved and engaged in daily living, to improve their experiences. Staff we spoke with were enthusiastic about their role working with people and they were knowledgeable about the support needs of people. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They said they felt supported by the manager and advice and support was available from the manager. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service. A range of quality assurance processes were in place within the service. An external quality assurance system needed to be introduced by the provider to monitor the quality of care provided by the service.

During this inspection there were three people staying at the service. One person was out for the day, and another chose not to talk with us. We spoke with one person who said they were “very happy here” and received “good support”. They told us they enjoyed their holidays at the home and took part in activities they had decided on.

We also saw evidence of the experiences of other people who used the service, and their representatives, from the home’s annual surveys. These showed people were satisfied with the service and had praised the staff support, the meals, and the activities and outings provided. They had also commented positively about meeting new people and making friends during their short breaks.

We spoke with three people who were staying at the respite service and two guests who were visiting. All people spoken with were very positive about the service and the care and support provided by staff.

.

One person said," Staff are very kind." Another person said; "I am asked what I want to do."

Other comments included; "Staff are excellent; and easy to talk to." " We go out to the pub or for meals."

People said the food was excellent and there was plenty to eat.

Staff we spoke with said they enjoyed working at the service and they had opportunities for personal development and career progression.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes and legal requirements.

The premises were refurbished for the comfort of people who used the service.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

We saw the provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people, who used the service, and to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received.