Background to this inspection
Updated
24 February 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 inspection took place on the 29 November 2017 and was carried out by one inspector.
Before the inspection the provider completed 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. We received the completed document prior to our visit and reviewed the content to help focus our planning and determine what areas we needed to look at during our inspection. We also reviewed other information we held about the service including statutory notifications. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us.
We carried out observations in communal lounges and dining rooms and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us due to their complex health needs.
During the inspection we spoke with ten people who lived at the home, one visitor, six staff members and the registered manager. Following the inspection four people and six relatives told us about their experience in Grace Muriel House in writing. We also received feedback from three health care professionals. We looked at three care plans together with other records relating to the management of the home.
Updated
24 February 2018
Grace Muriel House 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. They are registered to provide accommodation and personal care to 37 older people some of whom may live with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 35 people living in the home.
Previously when we carried out a comprehensive inspection at Grace Muriel House on 26 August 2015 we found that the service was Good. At this inspection we found that further improvements had been implemented which enhanced people`s experience about the care and support they received. We found the service Outstanding. This inspection was carried out on the 29 November 2017 by one inspector.
The home had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.
People told us they were feeling safe in the home and that staff helped them in a way that made them feel comfortable and safe. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding processes and how to report any concerns to the registered manager or local safeguarding authorities. Staff were enthusiastic and knowledgeable when they talked to us about the people they supported. They demonstrated a good understanding of people`s needs likes, dislikes and preferences.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who responded to people when they required assistance. Staff were knowledgeable about risk management and how to mitigate risks to keep people safe.
People received exceptionally effective care, based on best practice by staff with an in-depth knowledge of their care and treatment needs, who were skilled and confident in their practice. Staff worked with people, other professionals and continually developed their skills. People`s health and well-being improved due to the effective care they received in the home.
People felt that they were treated as individuals and they mattered. The care people received was exceptionally personalised. Staff paid attention to detail and demonstrated pride, passion and enthusiasm for the people they supported. They continuously looked for ways to ensure people had positive experiences and led fulfilling lives.
People’s choices, likes, dislikes and preferences were well known to staff who delivered care and support in a personalised way. People nearing the end of their life and their families received bespoke care and support.
People were encouraged to socialise, pursue their hobbies and interests and try new things. There was a strong culture within the service of treating people with dignity and respect. People and the staff knew each other well and these relationships were valued by people who used the service.
The provider had a robust recruitment process in place which ensured that qualified and experienced staff were employed at the home. Staff received training and support and were aware of their responsibilities when providing care and support to people at the service.
People and their relatives where appropriate were involved in the development and the review of their care and support plans. Support plans were comprehensive and captured people’s support needs as well as their preferences regarding the care they received. Care plans were updated every time a change occurred which influenced the way people received support. People were supported to take decisions about their care and be independent.
People were supported to have sufficient food and drinks. People had access to healthcare professionals such as their GP as and when required. People received appropriate support from staff to take their medicines safely.
The manager and the provider carried out a regular programme of audits to assess the quality of the service, and we saw that these were capable of identifying shortfalls which needed to be addressed. Where shortfalls were identified, records demonstrated that these were acted upon promptly.