• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Southwell Court

Hinkins Close, Melbourn, SG8 6JL (01763) 262121

Provided and run by:
Metropolitan Support Trust

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

16 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with said they felt safe. One person said, 'I have no fears at all.' Staffing levels had improved since our last inspection so that there were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the 22 people who lived at Southwell Court. Assessments of any potential risks to people had been carried out and actions put in place so that staff knew how to minimise and manage the risks.

Staff had undertaken training relating to safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. They demonstrated that they would report any concerns to senior staff within the home. However, their knowledge of agencies outside the organisation to whom they should also report was not as wide as it should be. The provider was taking appropriate action to ensure that people's rights were protected by appropriate consideration and use of the Mental Capacity Act.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy living at the home, their needs were met in the way they wanted them met and they liked the staff. Care records we looked at gave staff detailed guidance about the ways in which each person preferred to be supported.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with a number of people who lived at Southwell Court, and we observed how people related to the staff. We saw that people got on well with the staff, who had a caring, friendly attitude. People told us that staff preserved their privacy and dignity, treated them with respect and supported people to maintain their independence. People were pleased that staff had time to stop and chat with them and to do whatever they wanted them to do.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were regularly re-assessed and their care records updated to show the changes to their needs. Care plans gave staff guidance on the ways in which each person preferred their needs to be met. A number of activities and entertainments were organised, which people could join in if they wanted to, and people were supported to maintain contact with friends and relatives. People were given opportunities to express their views about the running of the home.

Is the service well-led?

An acting manager had been appointed to the service at the beginning of the year. Staff we spoke with, and the area manager, told us that a lot of changes had taken place since then, which had improved the service provided to people who lived at Southwell Court. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home. Quality assurance systems were being further developed by the provider in order to ensure that all aspects of the service were monitored and improvements made where necessary.

We found that the provider was compliant with the regulations in all the areas we assessed. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

11 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke to during our inspection all told us they were very happy with the care and support they received.

One person said, 'It's very nice here, everyone's very friendly and we are well looked after. A relative had sent a thank you to the local paper and quoted 'My mother was cared for with extreme dignity and love by all members of staff. We thank them for this with all our hearts'.

Care records gave staff basic guidance on meeting each person's individual needs. Potential risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to minimise the risks. Although within the daily records we found that people's needs during the night were not fully documented.

Medicines were managed well so that people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

We found that staffing levels were not adequate and put people at risk of not receiving care and support in a timely way.

The provider had a system in place to check that people were satisfied with the service. This included various monitoring checks on a number of aspects of the service.

17 December 2012

During a routine inspection

During our inspection on 17 December 2012, we spoke with the manager, staff and people who used the service.

We observed and talked with staff who were very knowledgeable about the people who lived at Southwell Court and demonstrated that they were able to understand their needs. Care records and the training offered by the provider enabled staff to meet people's health and care needs.

All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home.

6 September 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

As the main purpose of this review was to assess improvements made since our last visit, we did not request information directly from people using the service on this occasion. Overall, we found that the provider had taken sufficient action to address the shortfalls we had identified during our previous visit. Records we viewed showed that people's care and treatment was implemented as required and that their plans had been reviewed regularly to ensure that changes in people's needs had been addressed.

25 April 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

As the main purpose of this visit was to review specific concerns we had received about the home, we only talked to three people living there during our visit. They told us that staff treated them in a way that they liked and that there were enough staff to meet their needs. They told us that the food was good and they only occasionally felt bored. However one person told us that staff didn't regularly complete his exercises with him.

Visiting health care professionals told us that communication between them and staff at the home had improved and that they now met regularly with staff to discuss any concerns and issues. They told us that staff were now informing them when people had been discharged from hospital so they could provide them with additional support if needed. However, one physiotherapist told us she had concerns about the quality of staff's recording in people's care plans and, although this had been raised with the home before, she had seen little improvement, making it very difficult for her to know if people had been transferred according to her instructions, or that exercises she had prescribed to them had been completed.

Two people who had regular contact with the service told us that messages left on the home's answer phone had not been responded to in a timely way