• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Madison Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Madison Close, Parr, St Helens, Merseyside, WA9 3RW (01744) 455150

Provided and run by:
CareConcepts (St. Helens) Limited

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

All Inspections

18 July 2016

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on the 18, 19 and 22 July 2016.

Madison Court provides accommodation for up to 66 people requiring nursing and personal care and for people living with dementia who require care and support. The service is located close to shops and a bus route into the town of St Helens. Set in its own grounds the service has car parking facilities. At the time of this inspection 64 people were living at the service.

A registered manager was in place. 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 last inspection of the service in July 2015 we found that a number of areas around the service required improvement. We found that people’s medication was on occasions being stored in rooms that were too warm in temperature. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made to controlling the temperatures in the services medication storage rooms.

At the previous inspection in July 2015 we found that assessments of people’s capacity and best interest decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not been recorded. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made in this area. However, we have made a recommendation that the registered provider reviews their processes in place to ensure that assessments in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 contains all of the information required. This is because not all of the documents we saw in relation to people’s decision making contained all of the information required.

We have made a recommendation about monitoring the use of bedrails. This is because we found that although risk assessments had been carried out for the use of bedrails, there was no formal recording system for the monitoring of bedrails in use.

A further recommendation has been made in this report that the registered provider reviews the monitoring systems in place to ensure that they are robust and consider all aspects of equipment and people’s care. This is because we found that the current monitoring systems in place had failed to identify a lack of monitoring of bedrails in use and had failed to identify a lack of information being recorded in relation to people and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Procedures were in place to assist staff to identify and report any concerns that they had about a person’s safety. Staff had received training in safeguarding people and they demonstrated a good knowledge of what actions they needed to take if they thought a person was a risk from harm.

Systems were in place for the safe management of people’s medication. Designated storage rooms were available to ensure that people’s medicines were kept safe and records of all medication people received were maintained.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place. Newly recruited staff had attended an interview and produced documents that confirmed their identity. The registered provider had applied for references to demonstrate people’s character and had obtained a Disclosure and Barring Service check prior to a member of staff commencing their employment. These checks helped the registered provider ensure that only suitable people were employed.

People were supported by a staff team who received regular training and support to carry out their role. Staff had undertaken training which included health and safety and safeguarding people. Having access to up to date training helped to ensure that staff had the knowledge to carry out their role safely.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were assessed and provided for. When a specific need in relation to a person’s nutrition and hydration had been identified their meals were appropriately planned. For example, a number of people received low sugar diets to help manage diabetes. Other people received their foods of a specific consistency so that they could swallow their meals safely. Choices of meals and drinks were available to people throughout the day.

The registered provider had recently sought people’s opinions in relation to the care and support they received. All people had stated that they could choose what time they went to bed, had a choice of a shower or bath and that they felt their clothes were well cleaned and looked after. The majority of people had stated that they were happy with the care provided, were treated with respect and liked the food. A summary of people’s views based on their responses had been created to feedback to people and to also identify areas of improvements that could be made around the service.

The atmosphere at the service was calm and relaxed and it was evident that people had formed strong respectful relationships with others. Staff offered comfort and reassurance by sitting and talking to people and by using positive touch.

Policies and procedures were in place to offer staff guidance and support in decision making in their role. The documents were reviewed and updated on a regular basis to ensure that staff had access to information about current best practice.

Staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. When required, appropriate applications had been made to the local authority in relation to depriving a person of their liberty.

A service user guide was available to inform people and relevant others. This information included details of the services and facilities which people had access to.

The registered provider had a complaints procedure that was readily available to people who used the service. People and their relatives were aware of who they could speak to if they had a concern or complaint. The registered provider had a clear system for recording, responding and monitoring all complaints made about the service.

People had access to meaningful stimulating activities. These activities included group and individual sessions with activities co-ordinators. People had access to a safe garden area in which vegetables, fruit and flowers were grown. In addition, a further gardening project was underway to create an area of sensory stimulation for people. When possible, people were encouraged to access the local community independently, for example, to visit the local barbers and the local shop.

Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure that the service was safe and that people received the care and support they needed. Regular checks were made of equipment, people’s living environment, the fire detection system and care planning documents. When improvements had been identified, changes were made.

21 & 24 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 21 July 2015. A further announced visit took place on 24 July 2015 in order to complete the inspection.

Madison Court provides accommodation for up to 66 people requiring nursing and personal care and for people living with dementia who require care and support. The service is located close to shops and a local bus route into the town of St Helens. Set in its own grounds the service has car parking facilities. At the time of this inspection 42 people were living at the service.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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 last inspection in February 2015 we found that there was number of improvements needed in relation to; medicines, protecting people from receiving inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment, supporting staff, people’s rights to decision making, maintaining accurate records and monitoring systems in around the quality and safety of the service. In addition, we identified serious concerns in relation to people’s dignity and respect and safeguarding. We issued the registered provider with two warning notices in relation to these concerns.

During this inspection we saw that improvements had been made within the service in relation to planning and recording people’s care needs and wishes, staff training and support, the environment, the monitoring of the service delivered to people and to the overall management of the service. In addition, we found that the registered provider had taken action to address the concerns raised within the warning notices.

We found during this visit that improvements were needed to me made in how medicines were managed. We found that the temperature of rooms in which the medicines were stored was too high. This meant that people’s medicines were not being stored appropriately.

Improvements were needed as to what activities were available for people to participate in. People living in one area of the service had access to a number of activities on a regular basis, however not everyone who used the service had regular access to regular mental and physical stimulation.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. Where a person’s liberty was being restricted or that they were under continuous supervision, we found that appropriate applications had been made to the supervisory body under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People who used the service felt safe. Policies and procedures were in place in relation to safeguarding people. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of their role and protecting people.

People who used the service had enough to eat and drink. People were offered drinks and snacks throughout the day and had a choice of where they ate their meals.

Staff supported people in a kind and patient manner and it was evident that relationships between people and the staff that supported them had been developed.

People’s care and support needs were reviewed on a regular basis. Care planning documents were updated when required and appropriate referrals were made to healthcare professional when required.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet the needs of people. Staff had received training appropriate for their role and further training was planned throughout the year. Staff felt supported by the management team.

An action plan was in place to address areas of development needed within the service. This action plan had been developed to highlight areas of improvement around the service to improve the quality of care and support people received.

3 October 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was an unannounced inspection that was carried out by two inspectors.

During this inspection we spent time with a number of people who used the service and three of their relatives. Some of the people who used the service were not able to comment about the care and support they received due to a variety of complex needs. We therefore spent time with these people observing how they were cared for.

We considered our inspection finding to answer 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?

This is a summary of what we found '

Is the service safe?

People's care, treatment and support was not always planned or delivered in a way that met their needs. For some people who used the service we found that identified risks to their health and safety were not always accurately assessed or reviewed appropriately.

Is the service effective?

A lack of detailed person centred care planning showed that staff would not be fully aware of people's needs and wishes at all time. People's dietary needs were not always monitored and acted upon. People were not always supported to freely move around the building as they wished.

Is the service caring?

We observed a number of staff working at the home to have developed positive relationships with people and their relatives. However, improvements are needed to ensure that people receive physical and mental stimulation throughout their day.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the systems in place to assess and monitor people's care and nursing needs were not always acted upon. We found that when people's needs had changed referrals to appropriate healthcare professionals were not always made.

Is the service well-led?

There was no effective systems in place to monitor and review the care and treatment that people received. Audits of care planning documents and medicines had taken place, however, on occasions the audits had failed to identify changes in people's needs and action required.

There was no clear line of accountability in relation to the management of the different areas of the service.

5 & 9 February 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service on the 5 February 2015. This visit was unannounced, which meant that the provider did not know that we were coming. A further announced visit was made to the service on 9 February 2015.

Madison Court provides accommodation for up to 66 people requiring nursing and personal care and for people who require dementia care and support. The home is located close to shops and a local bus route into the town of St Helens. Set in its own grounds the home has car parking facilities.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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.

During the first inspection of the service in April 2014 we found that improvements were needed in relation to how the provider planned and delivered care to people who used the service, how the provider supported workers and how the provider assessed and monitored the quality of service provision. A further visit was made to the service in October 2014. The purpose of this visit was to see what improvements had been made to the service. During the visit in October 2014 we found that the service still required improvement in relation to the management of care and welfare of people who used the service, supporting workers and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision.

At this inspection we found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found that people were not always safe from harm. Incidents relating to safeguarding people and known risks to individuals had not been reported appropriately to the local authority for investigation and therefore people were exposed to continual risks to their welfare.

We found that people’s medicines were not managed in a safe way.

The service was not meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was because people’s rights and choices were not always considered in a manner that protected their rights and best interests.

People’s care and treatment was not planned or delivered in a person centred way that promoted their physical and mental health.

Management systems in place were not effective as they had failed to identify, address and manage risks to ensure that people received a good standard of care and support.

25, 28 April 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

We considered our inspection findings to answer 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?

This is a summary of what we found -

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to assess any risks identified when planning people's care and support. We found that Improvements were needed to ensure that these systems were effective. This was because not all identified risks had been considered in the planning of care for people who used the service.

Systems were in place to help ensure that people's medicines were managed appropriately.

People who used the service, their relatives and carers felt the service was safe.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. People's comments included 'They look after you well here', 'The staff here know you very well, they are perfect' and 'You couldn't get better service anywhere.'

People's health and care needs were assessed and care plans developed. We found that improvements were needed to ensure that care planning considered how people's needs were to be met. This was because current care plans failed to demonstrate how the needs of people who used the service were to be met.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by pleasant and attentive staff.

People who used the service and their relatives and carers told us that that staff were caring, their comments included 'They are perfect', 'Couldn't get better', "They look after you well'; 'All staff are brilliant' and 'They know what they are doing, can't fault them.'

Is the service responsive?

A system of review was in place to enable care plans to be updated on a regular basis. We saw that improvements were needed as to how the details of people's care and support were reviewed. This was because the reviewing process had failed on occasion to identify areas of people's care planning that required improvement.

Is the service well-led?

A quality assurance system was in place which included the regular monitoring of health and safety; medicines, infection control and the environment. We saw that improvements were needed to ensure that the manager of the service clearly demonstrated that they had audited the quality monitoring systems in use. This was because several of the completed audits were unsigned and therefore failed to demonstrate that the manager of the service had monitored the audits.