Archived: Grace & Favour Residential Care Home

On the day of our inspection one person was living at Grace and Favour Residential Home. We looked at the care records of this person and spoke with them. We also spoke with two care staff, the maintenance person and the acting manager.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Care plans did not have details of people's needs and how these were to be met. A risk assessment relating to the care and support being provided was last reviewed in March 2013. This did not ensure that people's personal needs were being met safely.

We asked to see the maintenance records and safety certificates for the premises, but these were unavailable. We could not see certificates for the fire alarm system, gas safety inspection or portable appliance testing (PAT). There were stickers attached to electrical equipment and the fire extinguishers that showed they had been recently tested. Cleaning chemicals were not stored safely in a locked cupboard.

We saw evidence of staff being employed despite other relevant information being noted on their Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificate. We did not see any evidence that this had been discussed at interview or an appropriate risk assessment conducted. Three people were employed by the home but no personnel files were available to demonstrate that the provider carried out appropriate recruitment checks.

Staff had not undertaken training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and they did not understand how this could impact on the people they cared for.

Is the service effective?

People did not receive effective care from staff because we could not evidence that staff were adequately trained or supported by the provider. Information that we looked at showed that staff did not receive any training. We could not evidence that staff received regular supervision.

There was no evidence to show that the care plan for the one person who used service had been regularly reviewed to reflect their needs so these were met as required.

Is the service caring?

The service was not caring. There was no evidence to show that staff respected people's right to be involved in decisions or to make choices about their care and treatment.

We saw that the person had an activity plan which was dated 2012. During our visit we did not see staff supporting the person using the service to engage in an activity. We saw very little interaction between staff and the person. The person appeared very quiet but happily spoke with us. When asked they said it was "very quiet here."

Is the service responsive?

The service was not responsive. People's needs were not reassessed on a regular basis and there was no evidence to show that the service responded to any changing needs. People were not always referred to relevant healthcare professionals according to their needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service was not well-led. The home has been without a manager for up to eight months, following the voluntary de-registration of the last manager. There was an acting manager who had been in post for three months. They were unable to answer many of our questions about the staff, including staff working patterns or supervision schedules.

We did not find evidence that regular audits were being conducted for the provider to monitor the quality of the service. People were not kept safe because information about them was not regularly checked and updated.

We found that people expressed their views and were supported to promote their independence and community involvement. The care provided followed a personalised care plan. We saw evidence of the involvement of other healthcare and social care professionals.

We found that the provider had a policy for safeguarding vulnerable adults and staff had appropriate training. Consequently, people using the service were protected from the risk of abuse. There was a satisfactory complaints procedure in place.