You are here

Carleton Court Residential Home Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

We inspected Carleton Court Residential Home Limited on 11 and 26 April 2018. The first day was unannounced and we told the registered provider we would be visiting on the second day.

The service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service can accommodate up to 24 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia in an adapted building. When we visited 18 people were using the service.

A registered manager was 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.

The service was rated Requires Improvement when we last inspected in January 2017. Improvements have been made and the service has been rated Good at this inspection. The registered manager was new in post when we last inspected. At that time they displayed a positive attitude and vision around how they were going to implement change to ensure people received high quality, person centred care. They have worked alongside the provider to develop the staff team, improve morale and the standard of care people received.

We saw they had implemented a new care plan system which ensured people’s preferences were recorded alongside clear information for staff to follow to reduce the likelihood of harm to people.

The provider, registered manager and a consultant auditor had monitored progress and reviewed the service to ensure progress was made. They all understood the on-going changes still required to ensure continuous improvement.

The provider and registered manager used feedback they received from people, relatives and staff to understand how they could improve the service. The registered manager and staff understood the signs of abuse and how to safeguard people appropriately.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and their families told us they were supported by kind and caring staff. They said their independence was supported and their care was provided in a dignified way. They felt confident to raise concerns if required. People received a person centred service.

Everyone enjoyed the activities on offer but felt they would benefit from more opportunities. There was enough staff on shift to keep people safe and support their care needs. More staff were required to develop the range and frequency of activities on offer. The provider agreed to increase staffing for this purpose following the inspection.

People enjoyed a good varied diet and were involved in choosing the menu on offer. Their nutrition was monitored and health professionals were involved to support people to maintain their health.

People and their families told us they felt safe and well cared for.

We saw safety was well managed including medicines, safe recruitment, the environment and equipment. Significant improvements had been made to the environment and cleanliness of the service.

Staff told us they felt very well supported and they had received enough training to enable them to fulfil their role. The registered manager had a plan to develop the formal supervision and appraisal system in the future.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Safe systems were in place to manage medicines, health and safety and recruitment of staff. Significant improvements had been made to the cleanliness of the environment.

Staffing levels ensured peoples care needs were met but did not mean people had access to enough activity and social stimulation. The provider agreed to improve this.

Care plans contained details to help staff understand how to minimise the risk of harm to people when supporting them.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received appropriate training and support to enable them to fulfil their role. The registered manager had a plan to develop the frequency of formal supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to make choices about day to day decisions. Where people required help with more complex decisions this happened, but records needed to be more robust.

People had support to access health care professionals and to monitor their health and nutrition.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff were able to describe the likes, dislikes and preferences of people who used the service and care and support was individualised to meet people�s needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People who used the service and relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support needs.

People enjoyed the activities they accessed but wanted more opportunities to take part in activities of their choice inside and outside the service

People and their relatives told us if they were unhappy they would feel confident to tell the registered manager and staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was well led.

The service had a registered manager who understood the responsibilities of their role.

The quality assurance process was effective to ensure the provider and registered manager knew areas to focus on to continuously improve the service and keep people safe.

People were regularly asked for their views and their suggestions were acted upon. People and their relatives felt the service was well led.