You are here

Courthill Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 6 February 2020

About the service

Courthill Care Home is a care home without nursing providing personal care to up to six people living with learning difficulties and autism. At the time of the inspection four people lived at the home.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensured that people who used the service could live as full a life as possible and achieved the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risks to people were not always consistently assessed and managed which could put them at risk. The provider’s personal emergency evacuation plans in conjunction with the fire policy and procedures did not provide staff with clear guidance on how to support people in the event of emergency. Staff were not reporting behavioural incidents as per the guidance in people’s support plans. Hence the behaviours were not analysed for any patterns or lessons learned.

The provider’s audits did not identify issues we found during our inspection such as lack of reporting of incidents, inconsistencies in records or actions needed around support with communication. The systems and processes were not robust enough to demonstrate the provider effectively monitored the quality and safety. This meant actions were not always addressed to reach best outcomes for people and continuously improve in line with legal requirements and national best practice guidance.

Following our inspection, the provider took action to review and improve their records and governance systems.

People felt safe at the home and staff knew how to protect them from abuse. The provider had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place and adhered to the local authority’s guidance.

Staff supported people to take their medicines as prescribed, and the provider had processes and systems to safely order, store and monitor medicines stock. Staff knew how to protect people from the spread of infections and were trained in infection control.

Staff supported people in person-centred manner. Care plans were personalised and included information on people’s needs, life story, interests and identity. Individual behavioural support plans provided detailed guidance for staff on how to support people when they were distressed. People were encouraged to live active lives and participate in activities matching their interests.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff asked people for their choices and involved them in their care.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. These ensured that people who used the service could live as full a life as possible and achieved the best possible outcomes that included control, choice and independence.

People were supported to eat healthily. Referrals were made to health care professionals where required and staff followed their guidance to ensure people received appropriate care.

Staff knew people well and addressed them in caring and respectful way. People were offered the opportunity to provide feedback and felt listened to.

Staff confirmed they felt supported by their manager and the provider. Staff were offered regular training and opportunities to develop their professional qualifications to be able to better support people. Multidisciplinary reviews of people’s care confirmed that this reduced people’s levels of anxiety and enabled them to live more active lives.

F

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 6 February 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 6 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.