• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Andrews Court Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Livesey Branch Road, Blackburn, Lancashire, BB2 4QR (01254) 679525

Provided and run by:
Krinvest Limited

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

All Inspections

12 August 2015

During a routine inspection

Andrews Court is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 35 older people. The service is located in a converted church and provides all single bedrooms with en-suite facilities.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 12 August 2015. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people using the service. We had previously inspected this service in September 2014 when we found it was in breach of one of the regulations we reviewed. This was because there were limited quality assurance processes in place. During this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service was now meeting this regulation.

There was a registered manager in place at Andrews Court. 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. The registered manager was supported in the day to day running of the service by a deputy manager.

People who used the service told us they felt safe in Andrews Court. People’s visitors said they were happy with the care their relative received and had no concerns about their safety. Sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people’s needs.

People spoke positively about the caring nature of staff. Our observations during the inspection showed staff were kind and respectful in their interactions with people who used the service.

Staff had been safely recruited. All the staff we spoke with knew the correct procedure to follow if an allegation of abuse was made to them or if they suspected that abuse had occurred.

Staff had received training to support them to deliver effective care. The registered manager was in the process of developing an improved system to monitor and plan for the training staff needed to keep their skills up to date. People we spoke with made positive comments about the knowledge and skills displayed by staff.

Systems were in place to ensure people who used the service received their medicines as prescribed. However, we noted the temperature of the room where medicines were stored was too high. When we brought this to their attention the deputy manager took immediate action to ensure medicines were stored at a safe temperature.

We saw there were risk assessments in place for the safety of the premises. All areas of the home were clean and well maintained. Procedures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection. Systems were in place to deal with any emergency that could affect the provision of care, such as a failure of the electricity and gas supply.

People’s care records contained good information to guide staff on the care and support required. The care records showed that risks to people’s health and well-being had been identified and plans were in place to help reduce or eliminate the risk. People told us they had been involved in agreeing their care plans. This helped to ensure their wishes were considered and planned for.

We saw that appropriate arrangements were in place to assess whether people were able to consent to their care and treatment. We found the provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions.

We found the meals provided in Andrews Court were varied and nutritionally balanced. Systems were in place to help ensure people’s health and nutritional needs were met. Visiting health professionals we spoke with told us the standard of care provided by staff was very good.

A programme of activities was provided by the activity coordinator employed in the service. A reminiscence room had been developed to encourage people to discuss past interests and experiences. We noted people were supported to develop and maintain links with the local community.

Records we reviewed showed people had opportunities to comment on the care provided in Andrews Court. All the people we spoke with told us they would feel confident to raise any concerns with the staff and managers in the service.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to help ensure that people received safe and effective care.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at Andrews Court. People commented positively about the quality of leadership displayed by the registered manager in the service.

23 September 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection team was made up of two inspectors. The team gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive to people's needs? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the visit, speaking with seven people who used the service and two relatives. We also spoke with four staff, two visiting professionals and looked at records.

We noted this was the first inspection for the service as the home had only been operational for six months prior to our inspection.

Is the service safe?

We spoke with seven people who used the service. They told us they felt safe in Andrews Court and were happy with the care provided. Two relatives we spoke with also confirmed they had no concerns about the care their family member received in the home.

Care records included information about the individual needs of people who used the service. Information included areas of risk and some guidance for staff about what they would need to do to keep people safe.

Is the service effective?

People were assessed by a senior member of staff from the home before they were admitted to ensure their individual needs could be met.

Records showed people's health needs were monitored and they were supported to access relevant health services when necessary.

All the people we spoke with told us they thought staff in Andrews Court had the skills and knowledge required for their roles. Some staff had received training to support them to provide safe and effective care. A training plan was in place to ensure all staff were able to access training when places became available.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with made complimentary comments about the staff team. Comments included, 'Staff are great', 'Staff are absolutely wonderful' and 'Staff have been very supportive. They are very attentive'.

It was clear from our observations and discussions with staff that they knew people well and had a good understanding of their care and support needs.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

Information in the care records showed that the staff at the home involved other healthcare professionals in the care and support of people who used the service.

Although people who used the service were not always aware of the complaints procedure in the home, they told us they would speak to the registered manager if they had any concerns about their care and were confident they would be listened to. Relatives we spoke with told us the registered manager was approachable and would always address any concerns they had.

Is the service well led?

The home had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission and was qualified to undertake the role.

Regular meetings were held with staff. These provided the opportunity for staff to discuss any concerns or practice issues in the home. Staff told us they enjoyed working in Andrews Court and felt well supported by the registered manager and senior staff.

We found improvements needed to be made to the quality assurance processes in the home.