We carried out a review of the data available to us about Archers Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Archers Court, you can give feedback on this service.
¿ People who used the service told us they felt safe. One person said, “I feel very safe, very safe indeed.”
¿ Risks to people’s safety and welfare were regularly assessed, reviewed and safely managed.
¿ Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm, and when to raise concerns they may have. People’s medicines were safely managed and given to them when they needed them.
¿ People were cared for by enough staff who met people’s needs safely. Staff were employed following robust procedures to ensure they were appropriate for the role they were employed for.
¿ Staff received appropriate training, they felt supported in their role and could discuss their ongoing development.
¿ People received care from staff in a dignified and sensitive manner. People told us how staff were kind and caring and treated them with kindness and respect.
¿ People were supported to have choice and control of the care and support they received. We saw examples of how people were supported to retain and increase their independence.
¿ People were supported to engage in social activities that met their interests.
¿ Complaints received were managed well.
¿ There was a registered manager in post however they were not available at this inspection. The deputy manager was managing the service at the time of this inspection. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care provided to people.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection on 18 February 2016 the service was rated as ‘Good.’ The report was published on 19 July 2016. The service has remained rated Good in all areas and Good overall.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our reinspection schedule for those services rated Good.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 18 February 2016.
The service provides personal care to people living in their own flats in a purpose built building. At the time of the inspection, although most flats were occupied, just five people were being supported with personal care by the service. In each instance, the support provided was minimal. Three people only received support to take their medicines, one person had support to make breakfast and another person received ad hoc support with taking a shower. Everyone else who lived at the service managed their own needs independently, although some people made use of a daily welfare check. The service was set up to enable people to purchase the amount of support they required as and when they needed it.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
There were systems in place to safeguard people from harm. Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities to report any matters of concern and were confident to do so. There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff about how risks to people could be minimised.
The provider had robust recruitment processes in place to ensure as far as possible, that suitable staff were employed. There were sufficient, skilled staff to provide safe care to people.
Staff received supervision and support, and had training to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided.
The service did not provide meals although some people made use of the restaurant located in the care home that shares a site with the service. Staff supported people to prepare meals where this was part of their care package. At the time of the inspection, one person had this support at breakfast time. People were supported to access other health and social care services if required.
People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. There was a range of events and activities offered within the communal areas of the building which were based on people’s interests. Some people also joined in activities provided by the care home on the same site. There was a chaplain appointed by the provider to support people’s spiritual needs and some people also attended services at the local churches and in the care home next door. People had good links with the local community and there was good information provided to people to enable them to know what events were available.
The provider encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service. The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and there were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.
.
We found that staff were aware of the need to ask for people's consent before offering care. One person told us 'They always ring my bell and wait. They would always come back another time if I asked them to."
We looked at the care records for five people. People's needs were assessed and care was planned in a manner which supported people to maintain their independence and promoted their welfare. We found evidence that care was flexible and adapted to meet people's fluctuating needs.
We saw from records that, where people required assistance to take their medicines, this was clearly identified within the person's support plan and that support was delivered in line with the plan.
We saw from records that staff had received training in the safe handling of medicines. We saw that regular medicine audits took place. This upheld people's welfare and safety.
There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and appropriate checks were made to ensure that suitable people were employed.
The provider had a number of ways in which they monitored the quality of the service, such as questionnaires, care reviews and audits. This showed that appropriate steps were taken to ensure that a high standard of care was maintained.
People also had access to the local church and their spiritual needs were supported.
One person said, "We have had a resident's association for three years now where we ask the residents their views. We also have a small committee where we talk about changes and make requests based on what the residents say even though they [the provider] are sometimes a little slow at responding."
We found that people's needs were assessed and that support plans were derived from these assessments. One person told us, "It's very good here, I get everything I need." People's support was also planned with their welfare and safety in mind and risk assessments were undertaken to protect people from harmful situations.
We saw that the service protected people from abuse and that people felt safe living at the unit.
Staff were trained for their role and were supported by an effective supervision regime.
The provider monitored the quality of the service, including listening to people's views about how the service was run and took steps to improve where shortfalls were found