Grey Gables (New Milton) Limited

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
Effective systems were now in place to review and mitigate accidents, incidents and allegations of abuse. Staff training had been improved and included a wider range of courses to address gaps in skills previously seen and additional staff had been deployed to meet people’s needs at night. Training completed by all staff included dignity in care and equality, diversity and inclusion, courses that had improved staff conduct and how people were interacted with. Staff now included people and their relatives in assessing risks and implementing risk mitigation measures that were person centred.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The manager had improved how they supported people when applications needed to be made to deprive them of their liberty. This also meant the provider submitted applications in the legally required format. However, while these improvements meant the provider was no longer in breach of legal regulations, additional assessments of capacity were needed to accompany some applications which were completed immediately after our inspection.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Detailed audits had been introduced and completed giving oversight of the service. The manager was able to respond to all questions about service provision assuring us of the improvements made to the governance of the service. The manager was responsive to concerns raised during the inspection, immediately addressing them and had supplied all requested records within the timeframe allowed. We found no evidence notifications had not been made. The was no longer a breach of regulations.