Lavender Court

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by 1 inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. They made telephone calls to relatives.

Service and service type

Lavender Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Lavender Court is a care home with nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the

quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since our last inspection, including notifications the provider had sent to us. We also gathered feedback from the local authority. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 4 people and 10 relatives or friends. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, 1 senior and 3 care staff. We looked at the care records for 6 people. We checked the care people received matched the information in their records. We looked at records relating to the management of the service, including audits carried out within the service and staff recruitment checks.

Lavender Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Lavender Court accommodates a maximum of 49 people in one building. The provider accommodates people living with dementia, poor mental health, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. At the time of inspection most people living at the home were older people, although a service may be offered to people under retirement age if appropriate. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people living at Lavender Court. The building was originally built as a care home and there are a number of adaptations to accommodate people who receive personal care with nursing. The building provides all single room accommodation and there are a number of communal living areas.

The service is required to have a 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. At the time of our inspection the location did not have a registered manger although a manager had been appointed and had applied to be registered with CQC. The acting manager and the regional manager were available throughout our inspection.

People and their relatives told us they were safe at the home. We found there had been improvement to the systems in place to identify risks to, and safeguard people. Staff were aware of these systems. People said there were sufficient staff but there were occasions where responses to people’s requests for attention were delayed. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way, with minor exceptions relating to recording. We found the environment was clean, was well maintained and people were protected from cross infection. We saw the provider had learnt from recent concerns raised from commissioners and was improving the quality of the service.

We found people’s rights were promoted, and their consent consistently gained by staff. Systems for the assessment of people’s needs had improved and ensured any risks due to people’s health were identified and responded to, with access to health care services as needed. Staff were well supported and had received training and had further training planned appropriate to the skills they needed for their job. People had healthy diets and sufficient drinks although we found the meal time experience could be more relaxed, this recognised by management. The provider, whilst having improved the presentation of the environment, said they now wished to make the home more ‘dementia friendly’.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring, and were seen to treat people with dignity and respect. We saw people’s independence was promoted. People and their relatives were able to express their views and make choices regarding their or their loved ones daily life. People’s contact with their families was encouraged by the provider.

We saw people, or their representatives were involved in planning their care and staff showed an understanding of people’s needs, likes, dislikes and personal preferences. People had access to some activity when they wished to participate. The management had identified, based on people’s feedback this was one area where they needed to improve, and they were employing dedicated staff to provide more activities. People were confident any concerns they raised would be listened to and addressed. Systems to enhance how the provider responded to people’s needs at times leading up to and after the end of their life were in development.

Management were said to be approachable by people, relatives and staff and we saw they were accessible. The management understood what they needed to do to comply with the law and were open and honest about challenges they faced. The acting manager said they aimed to ensure people have on-going, consistent and appropriate care. We found systems for monitoring the quality of care were in place, or being developed. The provider had taken on board advice from external agencies such as commissioners to assist their learning.