You are here

Christchurch Court - 4 Christchurch Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

4 Christchurch Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. 4 Christchurch Court is registered to accommodate seventeen people; at the time of our inspection there were ten people living in the home.

4 Christchurch Court provides care and support to adults with acquired brain injuries.

At the last inspection in October 2016, this service was rated overall as requires improvement because although changes had been made to improve the quality of the service we needed to be sure they were maintained. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made and sustained and the service was rated overall good.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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.

The service demonstrated an excellent commitment to providing outstanding care, which was embedded into the practices of the staff and the management team. The service put people's views at the forefront and designed the service around their needs. Staff were encouraged and enabled to work creatively which achieved consistently outstanding outcomes for the people receiving care and support. There was a strong system of quality assurance led by the provider and registered manager that ensured people consistently received exceptional care and support.

The registered manager was inspiring and dedicated to providing care, which met the highest of standards. They strived for excellence through consultation, research and reflective practice. They were passionate and dedicated to providing an outstanding service to people. They led with a dynamic approach and continually reflected on how to improve the service further. They demonstrated a strong and supportive leadership style, seeking feedback in order to further improve what was offered. The provider's vision and values were understood and shared across the staff team.

The service responded to people's needs and preferences. People were supported by a service that was devoted to getting to know the people they supported. Relatives told us the service was responsive and well managed. The service sought people's views and opinions and acted upon them.

People were supported with care and compassion and there was an ethos of care which was person centred and valued people as individuals. People received a personalised service that was responsive to their individual needs, there was an emphasis on each person’s identity, and what was important to them from the moment they moved into the service.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff were not rushed in their duties and had time to chat with people. Throughout the inspection there was a calm atmosphere and staff responded promptly to people who needed support. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

Care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and helped to keep them safe. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures to take to minimise any risks.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People received care from staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person and p

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was safe.

The staff team kept people safe from avoidable harm.

Risks associated with people's care and support were minimised because risk assessments had been completed and were followed by staff.

Appropriate recruitment processes were in place and suitable numbers of staff were deployed to meet people's needs.

People were supported with their medicines as prescribed by their GP and appropriate systems were in place to make sure people were protected against the risk of infection.

Lessons were learned and improvements were made when things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was effective.

People's needs were assessed and met by staff that were skilled and had completed the training they needed to provide effective care.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including gaining consent to care and people's right to decline their care.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was caring.

The staff team were kind and caring and involved people in their care and support.

People's privacy and dignity were promoted and protected by the staff team.

Information was made available to people in their preferred method of communication.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

This service was responsive.

People were supported to be involved in the planning of their care. They were provided with support and information to make decisions and choices about how their care was provided.

A complaints policy was in place and information readily available to raise concerns. People knew how to complain if they needed to.

Well-led

Outstanding

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was exceptionally well led.

The service had a positive, person-centred and open culture.

The registered manager and the provider were dynamic and led by example, continually seeking to improve what the service offered to people.

Robust quality assurance processes ensured continual monitoring of safety, quality and effectiveness of the service.