Archived: Prince Bishop Court

Updated 30 October 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

One adult social care inspector completed this unannounced inspection of Prince Bishop Court on 3 and 8 September 2015.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the home. The information included reports from local authority contract monitoring visits. We reviewed notifications that we had received from the service and information from people who had contacted us about the service since the last inspection, for example, people who wished to compliment or had information that they thought would be useful about the service.

Before the inspection we obtained information from a Strategic Commissioning Manager and Commissioning Services Manager from Durham County Council, a Commissioning Manager and an Adult Safeguarding Lead Officer from Durham and Darlington Clinical Commissioning Group, Safeguarding Practice Officer and Safeguarding Lead Officer of Durham County Council, and a Lead Infection Control Nurse.

During the inspection we spoke with ten people who used the service and two relatives. We also spoke with the company director, the deputy manager, two care staff and one senior care staff.

We spent time with people in the communal areas and observed how staff interacted and supported individuals. We observed the meal time experience and how staff engaged with people during activities. We also undertook general observations of practices within the home and we also reviewed relevant records. We looked at five people’s care records, recruitment records and the staff training records, as well as records relating to the management of the service. We looked around the service and went into some people’s bedrooms, bathrooms and the communal areas.

Updated 30 October 2015

We carried out this inspection on 3 and 8 September 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.

Prince Bishop Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 15 people with learning disabilities.

The service is provided from within two properties that are run as three separate entities (Numbers 1 and 2 Prince Bishop Court and Belgrave House). All the properties are set together in a residential area near to public transport routes, local shops and community facilities.

At the previous inspection on 30 September 2014 we found two breaches of legal requirements. We asked the provider to:

• Make sure that people at the home were protected from inappropriate or unsafe treatment by following appropriate professional and expert guidance when carrying out their care.
• Improve the way the service is monitored and checked by senior managers and the provider so that the safety and quality of care is upheld and mistakes are avoided.

The provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. As part of this comprehensive inspection we found that they had followed their action plan, sustained these improvements and confirmed that they now met legal requirements.

The inspection was led by an adult social care inspector.

There was a registered manager in place who had been in their present post at the home for approximately nine months. 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 registered manager was not on duty at the home at this inspection. Her place was taken by the company director supported by the deputy manager.

People who used the service, and family members, made complimentary statements about the standard of care provided. They told us they liked living at the home, liked the people they lived with and they got along with staff who were friendly and helped them. Some people communicated with us in sign language to tell us they were happy at the home. We saw staff treated people with dignity, compassion and respect and people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the present needs of people using the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out background checks when they employed staff to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions, appraisals and a training / development plan was also completed, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

The interactions between people and staff that were supportive and people got along well with each other and staff. Staff were kind and respectful; we saw that they were aware of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

We saw that people were supported to take part in interesting and meaningful activities. They took part in education, leisure and social events and staff were constantly looking for more opportunities for people to enjoy.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services. People were supported and encouraged to have regular health checks and were always accompanied by staff to hospital appointments and emergencies.

People at the home were regularly asked for their views about the service and if there was anything they would like to improve. People we spoke with told us that they knew how to complain and found the registered manager approachable but did not have any concerns about the service.

There were robust procedures in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and staff had received training about the actions they must take if they saw or suspected that abuse was taking place.

People told us they were offered a selection of traditional and contemporary meals. We saw that each individual’s preference was catered for and people were supported to make sure their nutritional needs were met.

We saw comprehensive medication audits were carried out regularly by the management team and external agencies to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

Each of the houses were clean, spacious and suitably built or adapted for the people who presently used the service.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. We found the provider was following legal requirements in the DoLS.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources including people who used the service and their family and friends. The staff and registered manager reflected on the work they had done to meet peoples’ needs so they could see if there was any improvements they could make.