You are here

Archived: Royal Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 August 2015

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 8 and 9 January 2015 at which a breach of legal requirements was found. This was because the registered person did not have suitable arrangements in place in order to ensure staff were appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities, by receiving appropriate supervision and appraisal. After this inspection we also received concerns in relation to how the provider dealt with complaints. We looked into these concerns as part of this inspection. This report only covers our findings in relation to these topics.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook a focused inspection on 30 July 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.

This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for ‘Royal Court’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 our focused inspection on 30 July 2015 we found the provider had followed their action plan which they said would be completed by 31 May 2015 and legal requirements had been met. Staff were having one to one meetings and annual appraisals to discuss their performance and training needs. People’s complaints and those made on their behalf were listened to and investigated. A response was made to complainants to inform them about any action taken.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 February 2015

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from the possibility of harm or abuse. Staff knew what to look for and how to raise concerns.

People were protected from the risk of accidents or incidents by reducing hazards. There were some restrictions to keep people safe but these were kept to a minimum.

There were enough staff with the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe.

People’s medicines were administered safely and in line with national guidance.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 21 August 2015

We found that action had been taken to make the service effective.

This meant the provider was now meeting legal requirements. While improvements had been made we have not revised the rating for this key question. To improve the rating to ‘Good’ would require a longer term track record of consistent good practice. We will review our rating for effective at the next comprehensive inspection.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 February 2015

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and sensitivity. Staff knew people’s personal histories and were familiar with their individual care needs.

People felt involved and planned their care and support with staff. People’s personal information was kept securely and respected their right to confidentiality.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Their independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 August 2015

The service was responsive. People’s complaints and those made on their behalf were listened to and responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 February 2015

The service was well-led.

There was a clear vision for the development of the home. People and staff were happy with the improved standards of care.

Quality assurance systems were used to drive changes in the service and to improve the quality of the service. People, their relatives and staff were involved in this process.

Open communication was promoted and there were a variety of ways to provide feedback. People, relatives and staff were confident they would be listened to by the manager and the provider.