We carried out a review of the data available to us about Temple Grove Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Temple Grove Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Temple Grove is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to younger and older people. The service can support up to 65 people, 55 people were being supported at the time of inspection.
Temple Grove accommodates people across four units, each of which has separate adapted facilities. One of the wings specialises in providing care to people who require support with complex care needs, such as spinal injuries. The service also provides respite support to people. Respite is when a service provides care to a person for a period of time, without them living there permanently. This could include support when coming out of hospital.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Everyone we spoke with and heard from gave the highest feedback about the service and the kindness and compassion that staff showed people. A person told us, “I’m not treated as just a resident, I’m treated as my own special person.” Another person said, “Couldn't think of a nicer nursing home. Always ‘life and laughter’ here. I'd recommend to absolutely everyone.”
People felt listened to and the personalised dedicated support had a profound impact on their wellbeing. Relatives told us how much this meant to them and their loved ones. Staff had considered every aspect of support required for end of life care and created innovative ways to support people and their relatives during this difficult time. Activities were thoughtfully planned centred on people’s interests and staff promoted strong links with the community.
Everyone we spoke to was highly complementary about the registered manager and how the service was run. One relative said, “The registered manager really has her finger on the pulse. She is so caring.” The management team spoke with great passion about the service and encouraged staff to provide the best possible care to people.
The registered manager and quality training manager used creative ways to listen to people’s views and acted on them to improve. Community involvement was strongly promoted and opened up new networking opportunities for people.
The management team had good oversight of what happened day to day. They had developed tools to help track the quality of the care and support, so they could improve it. There was a culture of everyone being involved in the continuous improvement of the service.
Equality and diversity were deeply embedded into the home. People’s differences were highly respected and supported. Staff worked hard to promote people’s independence mitigating any risks, so they were not restricted from doing what they wanted to do. A relative told us, “My relative is treated as a person, not a number. Staff are absolutely brilliant and care so much.”
People and relatives told us they felt safe and were supported by a strong, knowledgeable staff team. People were involved in recruiting staff, so they had a say about who would support them. People received their medicines safely and were supported to have as much control as they wanted over their medicines.
Everyone we spoke to was confident that staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. People were supported by a range of health and social care professionals to improve their wellbeing. People’s nutritional needs were consistently met, and they were positive about the quality and quantity of food provided.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 31 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service had a registered manager. 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 previously inspected Temple Grove Care Home on 24 and 25 September 2015 and found improvements needed to be made, relating to environmental risk assessments, safe recruitment procedures, the lack of a registered manager in post and quality auditing systems not being established. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in all of these areas.
People were safe. The home's equipment was well maintained. Staff understood the importance of people's safety and knew how to report any concerns they may have. Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed and plans were in place which instructed staff how to minimise any identified risks to keep people safe from harm or injury.
There were sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs and staff knew people well and had built up good relationships with people as they tend to work consistently on the same unit within the service. The registered provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place.
The registered manager and staff had received training and were knowledgeable about of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Mental capacity assessments were needed for people who may not be able to consent to, for example, bed rails.
Staff treated people as individuals with dignity and respect. Staff were knowledgeable about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and care needs. Staff were skilled to approach people in different ways to suit the person and communicate in a calm, friendly manner which people responded to positively.
Peoples' health was monitored and they were referred to health services in an appropriate and timely manner. Any recommendations made by health care professionals were acted upon and incorporated into peoples' care plans. People with complex care needs were given excellent care and the service is used as a first point of call for local health commissioners.
People who wanted to be occupied had busy lifestyles which reflected their lifestyle choices and likes and dislikes. Complaints were recorded appropriately and were used as a tool for improving services.
There was an open, transparent culture and good communication within the staff team. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and their leadership style. There was an atmosphere of support and inclusion among the staff at Temple Grove. The whole management team had positive relationships with the care staff across and there was a genuine sense of collaboration and teamwork.
The registered manager took an active role within the home and led by example. There were clear lines of accountability and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager had ensured networks were in place to offer excellent care to people with complex needs. The registered provider had robust systems in place to assess and audit the quality of the service.
There were suitable arrangements in place for the safe storage, receipt and management of people’s medicines. Medicine profiles were in place which provided an overview of the individual’s prescribed medicine, the reason for administration, dosage and any side effects
.
People received a person centred service that enabled them to live active and meaningful lives in the way they wanted. People had freedom of choice at the service. People could decorate their rooms to their own tastes and choose if they wished to participate in any activity. Staff respected people's decisions.
People had enough to eat and drink, and received support from staff where a need had been identified. People's special dietary needs were clearly documented and staff ensured these needs were met. People had access to healthcare services and had their health needs met.
When we carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at Manor Gardens on the 27 and 28 January 2015. Breaches of Regulation were found and two Warning Notices were issued in respect of ensuring people’s safety and the management of medicines. We undertook this inspection on 24 and 25 September and 2 October 2015 to follow up on whether the required actions had been taken to address the previous breaches identified. At this comprehensive inspection we found Manor Gardens had taken appropriate action to address all breaches to Regulations identified at the last inspection. The service was found to be fully compliant with all required Regulations and establishing ongoing improvements for the benefit of people using the service. Details of previous breaches will be found under each of the five question headings.
Manor Gardens provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 64 people living with a range of complex care needs, including end of life care, diabetes, stroke, heart conditions and Parkinson’s disease. Many of the people needed support with their personal care, eating and drinking and mobility. Some people were also living with dementia. The service also provided respite care to give people and their supporters a break from caring roles.
You can read a summary of our findings from both inspections below.
Comprehensive Inspection of 27 and 28 January 2015.
There were 43 people living at the service on the days of our inspection.
We identified a number of areas of practice which potentially placed people at risk of receiving inappropriate care and support. Risks had not been identified through auditing or quality assurance.
Management systems for medicines were not consistently safe. For example some medicines were signed for as being administered and taken when they had not been taken.
The service was not following best practice guidelines on moving people in a safe way. For example we observed staff moving a person in an unsafe way in front of a more senior member of staff.
Where people had undergone assessments for bed rails or lap belts, these had not been reviewed to reduce potential risk. There was a lack of best interests’ decisions about the use of devices that included bed rails and lap straps, corresponding risk assessments had not been reviewed. There was no consideration if these matters should be considered under Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS).
The service had not identified environmental hazards and had not taken action to reduce risk this included the security of the home.
Some people felt the service was not caring and we found it did not always promote people’s dignity. For example some staff did not explain the care they were giving and net underwear was shared.
Some people’s records were not completed accurately, so their needs could not be fully assessed and evaluated. People’s social needs were not assessed and documented, so there was no evaluation to assess if people’s individual needs were met in this area.
Some people told us the service was not well led, particularly commenting on changes in managers. Although audits of service provision had taken place they did not consistently identify areas for action or detail action plans for improvements. The service’s aims and objectives had not been updated to reflect changes in the service.
People commented on the difficulties caused by high staff turnover and communication issues relating to some staff. We saw a few areas where attention was needed to cleanliness, for example bed rail covers.
Comprehensive Inspection of 24 and 25 September and 2 October 2015.
There were 39 people living at the service on the days of our inspection.
After our inspection in January, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to ensure all regulations would be met. We found the Warning Notices had been met and significant improvements had been made. These will need to be embedded into everyday practice to ensure they are consistently met. However we found no breach of regulations at this inspection.
The service had appointed a new manager in August 2015 who had applied for registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We found people’s safety was not always fully promoted. Environmental risk assessments did not ensure all risks were identified, monitored and responded to effectively. Therefore risks to people may not be minimised. Recruitment practice did not ensure all checks were undertaken in a robust way to ensure suitable people were employed.
The new management team needed further time to establish and embed best practice. The quality monitoring systems needed further development to ensure they were used to identify shortfalls and demonstrate effective responses. This included the establishment of care documentation that was accurate up to date and completed in a consistent way.
People were looked after by staff who knew and understood them well. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and supported them to maintain their independence. They showed respect and maintained people’s dignity. Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s individual needs and preferences.
All feedback received from people and their representatives through the inspection process was very positive about the care, the approach of the staff and atmosphere in the home. One relative said “Everything is absolutely fine here. When my mum rings her bell staff come she is happy staff are friendly food is good and mum is very content.
All feedback from visiting professionals was very positive. They appreciated the improvements made to the service and endeavour to drive further improvement with a commitment to learning.
Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of abuse. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They had a clear understanding of DoLS and what may constitute a deprivation of liberty and followed correct procedures to protect people’s rights.
Staff were provided with a full induction and training programme which supported them to meet the needs of people. Staffing arrangements ensured staff worked in such numbers, with the appropriate skills that people’s needs could be met in a timely and safe fashion. The registered nurses attended additional training to update and ensure their nursing competency.
People were given information on how to make a complaint and said they were comfortable to raise a concern or complaint if need be. A complaints procedure was readily available for people to use.
People were complementary about the food and the choices available. Mealtimes were unrushed and people were assisted according to their need. Staff monitored people’s nutritional needs and responded to them.
People were supported to take part in a range of activities maintain their own friendships and relationships. Staff related to people as individuals and took an interest in what was important to them.
The management of the service responded positively to feedback received from safeguarding investigations and information identified through the inspection process. Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives and staff. People were encouraged to share their views on a daily basis and satisfaction surveys had been completed an action plan had been written to respond to information received.
We inspected Manor Gardens on 27 and 28 January 2015. The inspection was unannounced. Manor Gardens is registered for 64 people. There were 43 people living at the service when we inspected.
Manor Gardens was purpose-built as a nursing home. Accommodation was provided over two floors. Each floor had two separate units, with shared sitting and dining rooms. These four units were managed separately. People cared for in the service were living with a range of complex needs, including diabetes, stroke, heart conditions and Parkinson’s disease. Many of the people needed support with their personal care, eating and drinking and mobility. Some people were also living with dementia. The service also provided respite care to give people and their supporters a break from caring roles. The service reported they provided end of life care at times. There were no people receiving end of life care when we inspected.
There was no registered manager in post. A new manager had been appointed and was in the process of registering with 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service was last inspected on 28 August 2014. At that inspection, we found the service had not met essential standards relating to recruitment of staff, numbers of staff on duty, staff training and support, assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision and records. Following the inspection, the provider sent us an action plan which outlined how they would make improvements in the service. At this inspection, although some improvements had been made, we identified a number of areas of practice which potentially placed people at risk of receiving inappropriate care and support. Risks had not been identified through auditing or quality assurance.
Management systems for medicines were not consistently safe. There were occasions when people’s medicines were signed for as being administered and taken when they had not been taken. Inadequate completion of medicines records had been identified several times during audits but this had not led to action. Medicines trolleys were not always locked to ensure secure storage of medicines. Some medicines were not promptly disposed of when they were no longer prescribed.
The service were not following best practice guidelines on moving people in a safe way. Two of the people we spoke with raised issues about how staff supported them in moving. We observed staff moving a person in an unsafe way in front of a more senior member of staff. The person’s instructions in their room on how to move them safely had not been updated to reflect their care plan. Similar inaccurate information was identified for another person.
Where people had undergone assessments for bed rails or lap belts, these had not been reviewed to reduce potential risk. There was a lack of best interests’ decisions about the use of such devices and other areas of care, including covert administration of medicines. There was no consideration if these matters should be considered under Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS). The new manager reported they had identified staff needed training on the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had prioritised training in these areas. DoLS are safeguards put in place to protect people where their freedom of movement is restricted.
The service had not identified environmental hazards and had not taken action to reduce risk, for example, risks associated with tripping over. A range of people had raised concerns in relation to security at the service but action had not been taken to address these concerns. While accidents were reviewed, audits had not identified all risk factors, to ensure action was taken to reduce risk.
Some people felt the service was not caring, and they were not involved in planning their care. This related to a range of areas including decisions about personal care. Some staff did not explain the care they were giving to people when they asked. Systems in the home did not consistently support people’s dignity, for example net underwear was shared between any people who needed it. However, some people were very positive about the service, one person describing it as “very caring.” Other people reported staff knew how to meet their needs.
Most people told us they felt their health and care needs were met. However, we identified people’s complex needs were not always managed effectively. This included diabetic care and treatment, prevention of pressure ulcers and supporting people who were living with dementia. Some people’s records were not completed accurately, so their needs could not be fully assessed and evaluated. People’s social needs were not assessed and documented, so there was no evaluation to assess if people’s individual needs were met in this area.
Some people told us the service was not well led, particularly commenting on changes in managers. Although audits of service provision had taken place they did not consistently identify areas for action or detail action plans for improvements. The service’s aims and objectives had not been updated to reflect changes in the service. The new manager had started making improvements since they had been in post. For example, they had identified deficits in staff training and supervision. They had developed an action plan and while the service still needed to address many areas relating to staff training and supervision, progress had been made since our last inspection.
People commented on the difficulties caused by high staff turnover and communication issues relating to some staff. The new manager had also identified these areas and was in the process of addressing them. People felt there were sufficient staff on duty to meet their needs. This included people who remained all or most of the time in their rooms. Most of the previous areas relating to staff recruitment were addressed. We found one area for improvement in relation to assessing staff suitability for employment before they came into post.
One person told us if they raised issues of concern the new manager would take notice.
The new manager had developed the complaints system and where matters had been reported to them, they performed clear investigations and addressed matters if action was needed.
We saw a few areas where attention was needed to cleanliness, for example bed rail covers. These areas were not included on cleaning schedules. The new manager had developed an audit system for infection control and cleanliness. All areas included on the audit were clean and regularly audited.
Nearly all people commented favourably on the quality and choice of meals. People chose where they ate. Both dining rooms were attractive and comfortable settings for meals. When people needed support to eat and drink, this was provided. The new manager had taken action to identify people who were at risk of not having enough to eat and drink. They had made sure appropriate referrals were made for these people. Where people were assessed as being at nutritional risk, their needs were closely monitored and responses to treatments regularly evaluated.
People commented favourably on the day to day maintenance of the building. The maintenance worker was seen during the inspection, they responded promptly to requests.
We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
We answered our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
There were up to date risk assessments in place for people that used the service which explained the risks and how these were to be minimised. This meant that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.
There was an insufficient number of qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's assessed needs. Although the service used a dependency tool for calculating staffing levels this was not being used effectively. One staff member told us "I feel that staffing levels are not based on dependency". A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
We found that the recruitment records of two members of staff held concerning information about their previous employment. Whilst this did not mean they were unsuitable for employment, there was no risk assessment in place to show how they were to be managed in their employment. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
We identified a number of gaps in recording which meant that staff records and other records relevant to the management of the services were not accurate and fit for purpose. This meant that people were not fully protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, one person who used the service was admitted under a DoLS order. Proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff understood when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
Is the service effective?
Most people who used the service, and the visiting relatives we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care provided and felt that needs were being met. One person told us "I feel safe and well treated'. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and how to meet them.
The staff we spoke with expressed concerns about the support they received from management. One member of staff said "A bit more support from management would help". Another told us "Morale is the lowest it's ever been". We found that staff were not supported in relation to their responsibilities, to enable them to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
Is the service caring?
We observed that people appeared comfortable in the home and familiar with the staff that worked there. We saw that staff members spoke directly with people and supported them at an appropriate pace. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. For example we saw one staff member assisting two people who used the service. The staff member was caring and communicated well. They explained what they were doing and gave occasional reassuring touches. We saw that people were treated as individuals and given choices where possible. People told us they were happy about life in the home. One person commented 'I am well looked after, the staff are kind and helpful'.
Is the service responsive?
People's needs were continually assessed. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, goals and needs had been recorded and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People's needs were reviewed regularly to make sure that any changes were identified and appropriate support provided. We saw evidence that external professional advice was sought where concerns in health and well being were identified.
Is the service well-led?
People who used the service and their representatives were given opportunities to express their views about their care and treatment. We found that there was not an effective system for gaining the views of staff and acting on them. Staff told us that they felt their views had not been listened to by the manager of the service. It was of concern that the low morale and high stress levels expressed to us by staff had not been picked up by the provider. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.
After the inspection we spoke with the provider who took immediate action to support staff in discussing their views and concerns. As a result of this, action was taken to provide alternative management arrangements.
At this inspection we met with the provider, manager, deputy manager and four people who used the service. People told us that they felt they were looked after. One person said "I find it very good here". Another commented "I am well looked after. Staff try very hard".
We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Care plans and risk assessments were up to date and reviewed regularly. There was evidence that care and support was provided in line with care plans. The service monitored the health and welfare of people who used the service and took appropriate action when changes in needs were identified.
The records we looked at were up to date and maintained to an appropriate standard. We saw that monitoring charts were filled in correctly. Care plans reflected people's most recent assessed needs. Records were stored appropriately and were accessible to those that needed to see them.
We found that people were given opportunities to express their views about the care and support they received. People had the opportunity to express their preferences although it was not always clear what action had been taken to accommodate them.
We found a number of concerns which related to the care and welfare of people who used the service. Care plans did not always have up to date information and did not have all the information required in order to meet people's assessed needs. We found that people were placed at risk because care plans were not always followed. There was an inconsistent approach to the management of people's complex needs which placed people at risk of harm.
People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely. We found that controlled drugs were not managed appropriately. We also identified issues in relation to the timely receipt of medication and the monitoring and use of "as required" medicines.
Care staff told us that they felt supported and that they had opportunities to discuss any issues. We found that mandatory training was provided although not all staff had received specialist training in supporting people with complex health needs and end of life care. The provider told us that this had been arranged.
People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not always maintained. We identified concerns about the management of records in the service. Some care plans were found to be confusing and did not hold all the information needed to support people who used the service. We also found that a number of records that related to the management of the service were inaccurate or not available at the time of our inspection.
There were sixty one people in the service at the time of our inspection.
People received a good quality of support. People were encouraged to express their views and to live their lives as they wished. We saw that people had access to full and varied social lives.
People we spoke with told us they were "very happy here” and “couldn't fault any of it, the staff especially”. People told us they felt involved in their care plans. Other people told us their families were involved on their behalf.
Staff worked in person centred ways. For example, being courteous and knocking on doors before entering people's rooms. Staff were knowledgable about people’s care needs and treated people respectfully. They were relaxed, supportive and patient. We saw that staff explained and reassured people when necessary.
The service had a good quality assurance system in place. Complaints and concerns were listened to and acted upon immediately. People told us that they felt safe and were able to talk to staff if they had any concerns.
We saw that care records reflected each person’s needs and preferences. One person said "the staff always ask me when they want to know something about me".