Archived: Tudor Court Resource Centre

On the day of our inspection there were 20 people who were resident at the home. As part of the inspection we spoke to six people who used the service, three visiting relatives and two visiting health care professionals. We also spoke to nine members of staff, some of whom were employed by Rochdale Council or by the local health service.

Our inspection was co-ordinated and carried out by an inspector, who addressed 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. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. One person who used the service told us; 'I feel safe here, the girls are very good.'

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of what action to take if they had any concerns and understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore people were not put at unnecessary risk.

The manager sets the staff rotas having regard to people's care needs, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. People told us they felt staffing levels were adequate. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in determining their plans of care.

Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely.

Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented; "Cares are very good and I feel safe here. I have benefitted from the stay and I'm now able to do more things.' 'Staff are always available even at night time. They pop their heads in and ask if there is anything I need.'

People who used the service and their relatives completed a satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

We found care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People were involved in organised exercise sessions as part of their rehabilitation.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People could be assured that complaints were investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. One visiting health care professional told us; 'No concerns, people are safe it is a good place. The feed-back I get is that people really like it here, they must be doing a good job.'

The service had a quality assurance system. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

People's health, safety and welfare was protected because the provider worked in co-operation with other health professionals. The person we spoke with told us they regularly met with other professionals involved in their care, such as the general practitioner (GP) and their physiotherapist.

We found there were arrangements in place to manage medicines safely. The person we spoke with told us the staff prompted them when they needed to take their medicines and they were given their medicines on time.

The person we spoke with told us the staff were friendly and helpful. People were cared for by staff that had been through the appropriate recruitment checks. People's care records contained enough information to show how they were to be supported and cared for.

People were asked to consent to aspects of their care and support. Where a person did not have the capacity to consent appropriate people were involved in making decisions in their best interest. People were given a choice of meals, and GPs and dieticians were consulted if care workers thought it appropriate.

We saw there were enough staff on duty to provide the appropriate level of support to people. We heard that staffing levels could increase if necessary. Staff received support from their managers and most training was up to date.

There was a complaints procedure in place, and people staying at the home said they felt able to tell staff if they had any complaints.

We saw care was provided in an environment that was suitably designed and well maintained.