Pottles Court

Updated 13 May 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 23 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 13 May 2021

An unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 13 and 19 September 2017. It was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

Pottles Court provides accommodation for up to 17 people and there were no vacancies when we inspected. When we inspected, the service did not have a registered manager as they had resigned in February 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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. A manager, who had previously been the deputy, was working at the service at the time of our inspection. They had been the manager since the previous registered manager resigned. Since the inspection, there application to be a registered manager has been processed by CQC and they are due to be interviewed by CQC. A relative said the promotion of the deputy to the manager “was a great decision…she is a thoughtful lady.”

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection, applications had been made to the local authority in relation to people who lived at the service. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent and their legal responsibilities.

At the last CQC inspection in July 2015, we found a breach linked to recruitment. On this inspection, we saw improvements had been to the recruitment process to ensure staff were suitable to work at the home and there was no longer a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

At the last inspection, we judged the service was developing a caring approach which they have built on. The service continues to develop a very caring approach, where people were valued and respected. Dementia can create barriers for people to make their feelings and views known. Steps were taken by staff to go the extra mile to understand people’s own individual communication and recognise the importance of body language, for example monitoring pain. The values of the home were promoted by the management team; their approach helped staff transfer the home’s ethos into the way they worked. There was a commitment to learn and develop the service to the benefit of the people who lived there. A visiting medical professional wrote in feedback ‘Pottles Court really is the homeliest of homes.’ Visitors praised the welcome they received and the family feel to the home.

The provider, manager, supported by the deputy manager, held a strong belief of providing people with an enhanced quality of life which took into account individual wishes and beliefs so each person was valued and treated with equality. This inclusive ethos enabled people to feel part of the home’s community and maintain important relationships. The management team acted as role models for the staff team who were motivated to offer care that was kind, considerate and put people at the heart of everything they did.

The provider was proactive in driving the service forward to improve outcomes for living at the home. They worked in partnership with key organisations, both locally and nationally, to support care provision, service development and joined up care. The provider understood the need to provide staff with the skills, knowledge and tools to provide care that followed best practice. They invested in staff development to promote staff motivation and confidence to provide a high standard of care which promoted people's wellbeing and meant they had a meaningful life.

People complimented staff on their approach and compassion. People’s relationships were respected and celebrated. There were a range of interactions with people to help keep them interested in the world around them. Staff treated each person as an individual and respected their life history and experiences. Staff knew about people and who and what was important to them and significant events in their lives. Staff were able to tell us how they used their knowledge of people to engage and respond to them to show they were valued. Staff supported people to maintain relationships and build memories with family and friends who were important to them.

People told us staff were kind and we saw they had the skills to adapt their approach to each individual. People benefited from a staff group that were well trained and supervised. People had access to health services and staff recognised the importance of reporting changes in a timely manner. Care records were personalised, including information which could be shared if people needed care in an alternative setting, such as hospital.

Medicines were well managed. Risk assessments were in place for people’s physical and health needs. Staff in the kitchen worked alongside care staff to find food to meet people’s preferences and choices. They worked with care staff, discussing if a person’s appetite had declined, and what alternatives could be offered that might tempt them to eat. People looked confident as they moved around the home and people told us they felt safe.

The home was not purpose built but the provider said they had endeavoured to adapt the layout to suit the people that lived there. The ground floor layout enabled people to choose different areas to sit. Some people appeared to prefer to move around while others had a favoured spot in the conservatory or in the lounge. Accident and incident records were analysed and action taken. Staff knew how to report poor or abusive practice, and the management team responded to concerns appropriately. Staffing levels met people’s care needs and the atmosphere was calm and friendly.