You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at East Court. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 February 2017

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 and 11 January 2017. East Court is a care home for 17 adults with learning disabilities aged between 18 and 65 years of age. At the time of the inspection there were 16 people living in the home. The home sits in its own private grounds and has several outbuildings, some of which are used to provide workshops. The home provides day services for people from sister homes nearby, so people could take part in a range of activities and social occasions.

There is 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.

People told us people were kept safe and free from harm. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

There were suitable recruitment procedures and required employment checks were undertaken before staff began to work at the home. Staffing levels and skill mix were planned, implemented and reviewed to keep people safe at all times.

The staff understood their role in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be put into practice. These safeguards protect the rights of people by ensuring, if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm.

Systems, processes and standard operating procedures around medicines were reliable and appropriate to keep people safe.

Assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included environmental risks and any risks due to the health and support needs of the person. The risk assessments we read included information about action to be taken to minimise the chance of harm occurring.

Staff knew the people they supported and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and families were involved in making decisions about their care.

People were supported to eat and drink. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs.

Staff told us the registered manager was accessible and approachable. People and staff felt able to speak with the manager and provided feedback on the service.

The manager and provider undertook audits to review the quality of the service provided and made the necessary improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 February 2017

The service was safe.

There were processes in place to help make sure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding vulnerable adult’s procedures.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. Plans were in place to manage these risks. There were processes for recording accidents and incidents. Appropriate action was taken in response to incidents to maintain the safety of people who used the service.

There were appropriate staffing levels to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 February 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

Staff received regular training to ensure they had up to date information to undertake their roles and responsibilities. They were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat and drink according to their plan of care.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with other healthcare professionals as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 February 2017

The service was caring.

People’s choices were respected because they were actively involved in planning their reviews. Staff were knowledgeable about the care people required and the things that were important to them.

Staff were respectful of people’s privacy. We saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service. People responded well to staff and were supported to be as independent as possible. People were supported to access a range of activities.

People had access to advocacy services if required.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People were involved in developing care plans which detailed their care and support needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support needs, their interests and preferences and provided a personalised service.

Staff knew peoples’ individual communication skills, abilities and preferences.

People could be confident concerns and complaints would be investigated and responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 February 2017

The service was well-led.

Staff were supported by their manager. There was open communication within the staff team and staff felt comfortable discussing any concerns with their manager.

The registered manager and the provider checked the quality of the service provided and made sure people were happy with the service they received.

People and others were able to make changes at the home as they were consulted about their views on how the service could be improved.