Roswell Court

Updated 6 June 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection visit took place on 25 April 2018 and was announced. We gave the agency two days’ notice of the inspection visit because the management team are often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. This was a routine comprehensive inspection carried out by one adult social care 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.

Inspection site visit activity started on 25 April and ended on 27 April 2018. Two days after the inspection visit we phoned people who used the service and their relatives and spoke with two people who used the service and three relatives

We contacted 10 health and social care professionals and received responses from two of them.

We spoke with five staff which included the registered manager, duty managers, administrator and care staff.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information in the PIR along with information we held about the agency, such as notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

We looked at two people’s care folders, health and safety and the monitoring of quality. We looked at agency had collected about the quality of service using surveys of people, their relatives, staff and professionals. We also looked at information relating to staff training and records of staff meetings. We reviewed policies which related to the running of the agency. We looked at five evidence folders which the registered manager had compiled to demonstrate how the service was delivering care. The folders were aligned to the five domains (Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led) CQC uses to assess a service.

Updated 6 June 2018

Roswell Court is located near the seafront in the seaside town of Exmouth. They provide personal care for older people living in a purpose-built assisted living complex. There are 52 apartments in the complex. The apartments are privately owned and self–contained. There is a restaurant on site that provides meals if people choose not to prepare their own meals. There are also communal areas for people living in the flats to use.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 25 April 2018 and was announced. The registered manager was given short notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. Roswell Court was registered with the Care Quality Commission in February 2013 as a domiciliary care service.

CQC only inspects a service when people are provided with ‘personal care’; such as help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people are receiving personal care, the CQC also take into account any wider social care provided, such as support with activities. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care for two people. There were three other people who had been supported with personal care by the service during the week of our visit. Two of these people had been taken into hospital and one was on holiday at the time of our visit. Other ‘homeowners’ (people living) in the complex received support visits which did not include personal care. We therefore did not inspect the services they were receiving.

The time of visits provided by the service ranged from 15 minutes to one hour, with the frequency of visits from twice a week to six times a day. There were nine care staff employed.

At the last inspection in February 2016 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good:

The service had an experienced registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered persons, 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. They were supported by duty managers and care staff.

People said they felt safe and staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report if concerns were raised. People’s risks were managed well to ensure their safety. Where people required support with their medicines this was completed on time and in a safe way.

Care records were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences. People’s needs were assessed before their care commenced and care plans were regularly reviewed and updated as their needs changed. The registered manager said they were going to pilot a new computerised care system. They said to keep people safe they would keep paper records running alongside the computerised records.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People were able to use the restaurant facilities at the complex for main meals. Where needed, staff supported people with the preparation of other light meals such as breakfast and tea.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The registered manager and staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. Staff spoke confidently about people’s specific needs and how they liked to be supported. Care staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and maintained people’s independence as much as possible. They worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met in a timely way.

Staffing arrangements were flexible in order to meet people’s individual needs. Care staff were allocated people to support and a duty manager was available to step in where people required additional time. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Staff received training and regular support to keep their skills up to date in order to support people appropriately. Staff spoke very positively about the registered manager and how the management team at the service worked well together. The culture at the service was open and honest and focused on each person as an individual and the service was tailored to people’s needs.

The provider had a quality monitoring system at the service. The provider actively sought the views of people, their relatives and staff. There was a complaints procedure in place. There had been no complaints made since our last inspection.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.