All inspections: Roman Court - Care Quality Commission

Roman Court is a care home which provides care and support to people with nursing and personal care needs. The home provides accommodation for up to 36 older people, most of whom are living with dementia. Accommodation is provided on two floors; a lift is available to access the first floor. At the time of the inspection there were 31 people living in the home.

This comprehensive inspection was unannounced, which meant those associated with the home did not know we were coming. It took place on 15 January 2019.

At the last inspection in January 2017 the service was rated as good. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Roman Court’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence from our inspection 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.

The previous registered manager had left the service around six months prior to this inspection and the provider had appointed a new manager, who had previously been the deputy. The new manager had applied to be registered with CQC. 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.

We found the provider continued to make sure people were protected from abuse. The manager kept the staffing levels under review to ensure there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were well managed and records showed people received their medicines as prescribed. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans were in place to reduce the risks. The home was undergoing a programme of gradual refurbishment and redecoration.

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. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and they supported people to eat well, with choices of a variety of food and drink. People’s physical health was monitored, so that appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. Staff received training and support to ensure that they could fulfil their role. Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the manager.

There was a person centred and caring culture in the care team. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual.) The service had a friendly atmosphere. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way and encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. The relatives we spoke with told us they felt staff were caring.

The activities and entertainment was designed to meet the needs of the people who used the service and was mindful of people’s ability to concentrate. We observed staff undertaking activities with people, one to one. The complaints process was clear and people’s comments and complaints were taken seriously, investigated and responded to in a timely way.

Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service, using opportunities for learning and improvement. The manager placed a lot of emphasis on listening to and involving people, those close to them, the staff and other professionals and was developing more formal ways of doing this.

Further information is in the detailed findings of this report.

Roman Court is a care home which provides care and support to people with nursing and personal care needs. The home provides accommodation for up to 36 older people, most of whom are living with dementia. Accommodation is provided on two floors, a lift is available to access the first floor. There is a small car park at the front of the building and roadside parking is also available.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us the home was a safe place to live and work. Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise signs of potential abuse and aware of the reporting procedures. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans to reduce the risks were in place.

Recruitment processes were thorough so helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. At the time of the inspection there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medications safely, which included key staff receiving medication training and regular audits of the system.

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 support this practice.

Staff had completed an induction at the beginning of their employment. They had access to a varied training programme and regular support was available to help them meet the needs of the people they cared for.

People received a well-balanced diet that offered variety and choice. The people we spoke with said they were very happy with the meals provided.

People were treated with respect, kindness and understanding. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of how they respected people’s preferences and ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained. We saw staff took account of people’s individual needs and preferences while supporting them.

People had been encouraged to be involved in care assessments and planning their or their family members care. Care plans reflected people’s needs and had been reviewed and updated to reflect people’s changing needs. However, we noted that some monthly evaluations lacked detail, therefore they did not provide a meaningfully evaluation of the planned care.

People had access to activities and stimulation, as well as occasional outings into the community. Work was being completed to enhance the available social interactions to ensure they met people’s individual changing needs.

There was a system in place to tell people how to raise concerns and how these would be managed. People told us they would feel comfortable raising any concerns with the management team.

People we spoke with told us the management team were approachable, always ready to listen and acted promptly to address any concerns.

There were systems in place to assess if the home was operating correctly and people were satisfied with the service provided. This included meetings and regular audits. Action plans had been put in place to address any areas that needed improving.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection was unannounced, and the inspection visit was carried out on 29 and 30 December 2014. The care home was registered with the CQC in August 2014 so this was the first inspection of the service under the new registration.

Roman Court provides accommodation for up to 35 people on two floors. The home supports older people who require personal care and nursing care, this includes people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 33 people living at the home on a long term basis and one person was receiving long term respite care.

The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, but an acting manager had been appointed in July 2014. They told us they were in the process of submitting their application to be the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

During our visit we saw staff supported people in a friendly and caring manner. They encouraged people to be as independent as possible and any risks associated with their care were taken into consideration. We spoke with six people who used the service and five relatives, who all said they were very happy with the care and support provided.

People received their medicines in a safe and timely way from a nurse or a senior care worker who had been trained to carry out this role.

We saw a structured recruitment process was in place to help make sure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people, but recruitment records had not always been consistently checked and appropriately filed.

We found there were enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff had received an induction at the beginning of their employment and essential training had been provided. This had been followed by refresher training to update their knowledge and skills.

We saw people received a well-balanced diet and were involved in choosing what they ate. The people we spoke with said they were very happy with the meals provided. We saw special dietary needs had been assessed and catered for.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and people told us they had been involved in formulating their care plan. We found two of the three care records we checked reflected people’s needs and preferences in a comprehensive and person centred way. They had been reviewed and updated on a regular basis and reflected changes in people’s needs. However, the third plan we looked at contained an out of date care plan that had not been updated or removed. This had not had any adverse impact on the person and was immediately addressed by staff.

An activities co-ordinator was employed to provide regular activities and stimulation. Although they were not on duty when we visited, we saw staff provided activities during the afternoon on both days. People told us they had enjoyed taking part in the activities provided.

People told us they had no complaints, but would feel comfortable speaking to staff if they had any concerns. We saw the complaints policy was easily available to people using or visiting the service. When concerns had been raised we saw the correct procedure had been used to investigate and resolve issues.

The provider had a system in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and the general facilities at the home. We also saw regular audits had been used to check if company policies had been followed and the premise was safe and well maintained. Where improvements were needed the provider had put action plans in place to address these

Archived: Roman Court

All Inspections

15 January 2019

During a routine inspection

4 January 2017

During a routine inspection

29 December 2014

During a routine inspection