21 April 2016
During a routine inspection
Housing and Care 21 Leggyfield Court is commonly known as just ‘Leggyfield Court’ and is situated in Horsham. Leggyfield Court is a domiciliary care service that offers extra care to people in their own homes. The service provides support to older people who live in separate homes within Leggyfield Court. At the time of our visit the service was supporting 25 people with personal care. People had various needs, including dementia and/or a physical disability.
The home had a registered manager who was present throughout the inspection however they had recently been promoted to area manager. The acting manager was in the process of completing the registration application to the Care Quality Commission to become the 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.
People told us that they felt Leggyfield Court provided a safe service. However we found not all incidents of potential abuse were escalated and reported to the local safeguarding team. We made a recommendation to the provider to ensure the appropriate action is taken is taken to ensure the local safeguarding authority is informed about any incidents of potential abuse to people.
Staff were able to speak about what action they would take if they had a concern or felt a person was at risk of abuse. Risks to people had been identified and assessed and information was provided to staff on how to care for people safely and mitigate any risks.
People and relatives spoke positively about the support they received from the service and records reflected there was sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The service followed safe recruitment practices. People’s medicines were managed safely.
Staff felt confident with the support and guidance they had been given during their induction and subsequent training. Staff also told us they were satisfied with the level of support that they were given from the management team. Supervisions, appraisals and competency assessments were consistently carried out for all staff supporting people.
People’s consent to care and treatment was considered. Staff understood the requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and about people’s capacity to make decisions.
Some people received support with food and drink and they made positive comments about staff and the way they met this need.
Staff spoke kindly and respectfully to people, involving them with the care provided. Staff had developed meaningful relationships with people they supported. Staff knew people well and had a caring approach. People were treated with dignity and respect.
Changes in people’s health care needs and their support was reviewed when required. If people required input from other healthcare professionals, this was arranged.
People received personalised care. People’s care had been planned and individual care plans were in place. They contained information about people’s lives, including their personal histories. They provided clear guidance to staff on how to meet people’s individual needs. People were involved in reviewing care plans with the management team.
People’s views about the quality of the service were obtained informally through discussions with the manager, annual care reviews and formally through satisfaction surveys.
People told us that they knew who to go to make a complaint and how they would do so if and when they required.
During the inspection we found the manager open to feedback. People and staff told us the management team had improved the service. We observed the manager was open and approachable and quick to respond to any requests.