You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

Court view is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five people. There were three people living at the service when we inspected. People who live at the home have a learning disability.

At the last inspection in November 2016, the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found that the service was ‘Good’. At our last inspection, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the way medicines were managed and keeping better records. At this inspection we checked to see if the provider had made the necessary improvements. We found that improvements had been made.

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.

People using the service told us they felt safe living at Court View. People were kept safe from avoidable harm because the staff team understood their responsibilities. They knew what to look out for if they suspected that someone was at risk of harm and knew who to report their concerns too. The risks associated people’s care and support had been assessed and reviewed.

The insufficient information from the provider meant we could not confirm that all the recruitment processes were in place to make sure only suitable people worked at the service. The appropriate numbers of staff were available to support the person living there but risk to people and staff needed further assessments when only one staff member was in the home.

Processes were in place to make sure that when people needed support with their medicines, this was carried out in a safe way.

The staff team were appropriately trained and were supported by the management team through supervisions, appraisals and staff meetings.

Not all safety checks such as water temperatures, keeping cupboards with hazard substances locked or monthly audits were being carried out as required.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) ensuring people's human rights were protected. People using the service had access to relevant healthcare services and were supported to attend appointments when required.

People had been involved in developing menus to include their own likes and preferred choices. Their dietary requirements had been identified and they were supported to follow a healthy and balanced diet.

Independence was promoted and people using the service were supported to make choices about their care and support on a daily basis. They were supported by staff in a kind and caring way and their dignity was respected. A relative supported this view.

A plan of care had been developed with people and with staff who knew them well. The staff team knew the needs of the people they were supporting because the necessary information was included within their plan of care.

People using the service were regularly reminded of what to do if they had a concern of any kind. Staff members felt supported by the management team and told us there was always someone available to talk with should they need guidance or support.

The views of the person using the service were sought. This was through informal chats and meetings. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided and a business continuity plan was available to be used in the event of an emergency or untoward event.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Staff had attended safeguarding training and, had an understanding of abuse and how to reduce risks to people’s welfare.

People’s medicines were managed safely

There were enough staff to meet and support people’s needs. The risk assessment for when staff worked on their own in the home had not been done.

Not all pre-employment checks were satisfactorily provided to the registered manager to help ensure suitable staff were employed.

People did not always live in a safe environment because not all the basic safety checks were up to date.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

Staff understood how to support people who lacked the capacity to make some decisions for themselves.

The provider maintained a record of staff training requirements and arranged a variety of courses to meet their needs. Training changed as people's needs changed.

Staff were provided with effective supervision and support.

Staff worked well with local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they needed.

People were provided with food and drink that met their needs and preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring and gave person-centred care.

Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity.

Staff encouraged people to maintain and develop their independence and make choices about their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Information about people was updated so that staff only provided care and support people needed.

People were asked what they thought of the care and were encouraged to raise any issues they were unhappy about.

People were encouraged to participate in activities which they choose to do.

People and their relatives were given information on how to raise concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a transparent and open culture within the staff team.

People benefited from a well organised home with clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the staff team.

Staff found the registered manager was approachable and that they were encouraged to discuss any issues or concerns.

The provider encouraged people and their relatives to express their views about the service and the provider was open to suggestions for improvement.

There were service audits in place to make sure areas for improvement were identified and addressed in a timely way.