You are here

Royal Mencap Society - 30 Foster Court Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

We inspected 30 Foster Court on 22 February 2017, which was unannounced. At our last inspection on 23 October 2014. We found that the legal requirements were being met.

30 Foster Court is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people. People who used the service predominately had a learning disability and/or a physically disability. At the time of our inspection there were seven people who used the service.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Medicines were managed in a way that kept people safe.

People were kept safe because staff understood how to recognise possible signs of abuse and the actions they needed to take if people were at risk of harm.

People’s risks were assessed in a way that kept them safe whilst promoting their independence.

We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. The registered manager made changes to staffing levels when people’s needs changed.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and the provider had safe recruitment procedures that ensured people were supported by suitable staff.

Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate decisions are made in people’s best interests where they are unable to do this for themselves.

People’s capacity had been assessed and staff knew how to support people in a way that was in

their best interests. We found that where people were able they consented to their care and treatment.

People were supported with their individual nutritional needs and were able to access other health services with support from staff.

People told us and we that saw staff were kind and compassionate. Staff treated people with respect, gave choices and listened to what people wanted.

People’s preferences in care were recorded throughout the care plans and we saw that people were supported to be involved in hobbies and interests that were important to them.

The provider had a complaints procedure that was available to people in a format that they understood.

Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable. Staff understood the values of the service and were enthusiastic about their role and what their support meant for people.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided. The registered manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse, because staff had a good understanding of the various signs of abuse and knew their responsibilities to report any concerns.

People’s risks were assessed, planned and managed. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible, whilst taking account of their risks.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were employed in line with the provider’s safe recruitments procedures.

Medicines were managed in a way that protected people from the risk of harm.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training to carry out their role effectively. People were supported to make decisions about their care and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported effectively with their nutritional needs and they were supported to access health services.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and kind and showed patience and compassion when they supported people. Staff treated people with privacy, dignity and respect and gave people choices in their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People were supported to be involved in hobbies and interests that were important to them. People received individual care that met their personal preferences and were involved in the planning and review of their care. There was a complaints procedure available in a format people understood and systems were in place to act on complaints received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was well led?

People and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback about the quality of the service. Staff had clear values and were committed to provide a good standard of care. Monitoring of the service was in place to ensure that people received care in line with their assessed needs.