Archived: Gunters Grove Farm

Gunters Grove is registered to provide accommodation and care for one person. The service provides residential care in a small homely environment in a rural area. The home is staffed 24 hours per day.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.' Registering the Right Support CQC policy

The person who had lived in the home for 18 years told us they felt safe and happy living there. A relative told us the person was “happy and settled in their home.”

The person’s comfortable and personalised life-style was supported by the registered manager’s and staff team’s knowledge of good care practice. They were able to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives. Their care was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes and preferences

The registered manager worked as part of the small staff team which was sufficient to meet the person’s needs. The registered manager’s regular contact with the person and staff contributed to the relaxed family style care and support.

The person told us they felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. They had no worries and were confident they could talk to the registered manager and staff. Relatives had confidence any concerns they had would be promptly addressed.

The provider had systems and processes in place to keep people safe and minimise the risk of abuse. The person was 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.

The registered manager and staff ensured the person had their health care needs met. Staff noted changes in the person’s health and took them to GP visits when required.

There were informal quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. There were checks in place to monitor safety and quality of care.

The service was well run by a registered manager and staff who had the skills and experience to ensure the person received high quality person-centred care. The manager led a team of staff who shared their commitment to high standards of care and clear vision of the type of home they hoped to create for the person.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Gunters Grove Farm is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to one person. Gunters Grove Farm provides a small, homely environment in a rural area. The home is staffed 24 hours a day.

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.

The provider, the registered manager and a care worker were available for our inspection. We also met with the person who lived at the home. They had lived there for 16 years.

The person who lived at the home told us they felt happy and safe living there. They looked relaxed and comfortable with the provider, registered manager and care worker.

The person who lived at the home was supported by a small team of four staff who knew them well. The provider and registered manager provided hands-on care and they had supported the person for sixteen years. The two care staff had supported the person for 13 and six years. It was an important part of the person’s well-being to be supported by staff they had built a trusting relationship with.

A member of staff told us “We are just like a big family here and we want [person’s name] to have a really happy life.” The person who lived at the home told us they were happy and that they liked the staff. They said “I am happy here. I don’t want to move. It’s my home and I like the staff.”

Routines in the home were flexible and were based around the needs and preferences of the person who lived there. The person planned their day with staff and staff supported them to be as independent as they could be.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. They had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse and they knew the procedures to follow if they had concerns.

The person’s health care needs were monitored and met. They received good support from health and social care professionals.

The person who lived at the home was unable to look after their own medicines. Staff made sure medicines were stored securely and there were sufficient supplies of medicines. The person received their medicines when they needed them.

The person was always asked for their consent before staff assisted them with any tasks and staff knew the procedures to follow to make sure people’s legal and human rights were protected.

There was a small team of regular staff who understood the person well. They had the skills and knowledge to provide safe and appropriate care.

The person who received the service was asked their views about the care. We saw evidence they were able to make choices about aspects of their daily life and to influence how their care was delivered.

At the last inspection in February 2013 the home had not developed a formal system to monitor the quality of the service offered or to ensure it was fully compliant with the essential standards of quality and safety. We asked the provider to make improvements. At this inspection we saw that action had been taken and a system of quality assurance had commenced.

The provider had also up-dated the health and safety checks in the home so that the person living and their staff were protected.

We found evidence that the care and support provided was tailored to the person's individual needs and had been agreed with the person.

There was a small team of regular staff who understood the person well. They had the skills and knowledge to provide safe and appropriate care.

The person who received the service was asked their views about the care. We saw evidence they were able to make choices about aspects of their daily life and to influence how their care was delivered.

The home had not developed a formal system to monitor the quality of the service offered or to ensure it was fully compliant with the essential standards of quality and safety.

The home did not have systems in place to ensure that the health and safety of the person living at the home was protected and monitored. Risks to the staff when carrying on the regulated activity were not recorded. There were no records of the actions taken to reduce these risks.