Mulberry Court

Updated 3 March 2022

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 COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangement. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 9 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours notice of the inspection.

Updated 3 March 2022

About the service:

Mulberry Court provides care in two bungalows for up to 12 people. During our inspection there was 11 people accommodated at the service. The buildings had been purposely built to provide housing for people who needed support to remain as independent as possible.

Rating at last inspection:

This was the first inspection on the service since a change in registration in 2017.

Why we inspected:

This was a scheduled inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

Some people had lived there for a number of years and had varying degrees of support needs including learning disabilities, autism and communication difficulties. Therefore, some people were not able to tell us about their experiences of life at the service. We used our observations of care and our discussions with relatives and staff to help form our judgements.

People had good community networks which were personal to them. This included, links with local church’s, day services. People had been supported to develop and maintain positive relationships, including the use of technology to keep connect with family and friends. Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR) were promoted and understood by staff.

Staff were well trained and skilled. They worked with people to overcome challenges and promote their independence. The emphasis of support was towards enabling people to learn essential life skills. Staff encouraged positive risk taking so people could experience new things and develop wider opportunities. This had led to people feeling fulfilled and living an active life.

The service met the values that underpin the 'Registering the Right Support' and other best practice guidance such as 'Building the Right Support'. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. Also, how people with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There were a range of checks in place to ensure the safety of the homes. There were systems in place to manage infection control, and staff were aware of their responsibility in regards keeping the homes clean and infection free.

Comprehensive individual care plans were in place which include information such as likes dislikes, people who they wished to be involved in their care. This was described as people’s circle of support. The care plans addressed what each person liked to do, people who are important to them and who would be able to advocate on their behalf.

People were supported to make choices and staff supported people in the least restrictive way as possible. This was kept under review. Staff were aware of the legislation to protect people’s rights in making decisions.

Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify and address any patterns or themes. Learning from incidents was shared with the staff team. Records demonstrated that when an incident or accident occurred staff reported these to their management team to monitor.

Although there were sufficient staff available to support people, there was a high turnover of staff. The registered manager told us there was a current staffing crisis but they ensured sufficient staff were on duty with the use of agency staff. Relatives commented that they felt their relatives were safe, but concerned about the high turnover of staff. Staff said they felt well supported by the management team and senior staff overseeing the service.

Staff received supervision in line with the provider’s policy, staff felt supported and able to request a supervision if they needed one. Staff told us they were able to speak to their management team as they operated an open-door approach.

People had good health care support from professionals. When people were unwell, staff had raised a concern and taken action with health professionals to address people’s health care needs. Staff followed guidance provided to support people with their care.

A full description of our findings can be found in the sections below.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk