Archived: Perry Court

Updated 9 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

This inspection took place on 2 March 2016 and was announced. It was carried out by one inspector. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, statutory notifications (issues providers are legally required to notify us about), and other enquiries received from or about the service. A Provider’s Information Return (PIR) had not been requested due to the inspection date being brought forward to replace a postponed inspection. A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. The service was last inspected on 21 May 2014. At that time, the service was meeting the essential standards of quality and safety and no significant concerns were identified.

During this inspection we spoke with the two people who lived in the home, the registered manager and another member of staff on duty. Following the inspection, we telephoned a person’s relative and another member of staff to gain further feedback about the service. We observed staff practices and interactions with the people they were supporting. We also reviewed people’s care files and other records relevant to the running of the home. This included staff training records, medication records, incident files and health and safety records.

Updated 9 April 2016

This inspection took place on 2 March 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The service provides accommodation and support for up to four people with a mild learning disability or other associated conditions. At the time of the inspection there were two people living in the home. Both people were relatively independent but required prompting with their personal care needs. Staff supported people with other daily living routines such as cleaning, cooking and transport. People generally preferred to be supported by staff when they went out into the community to help keep them safe from harm or abuse.

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.

The registered manager said their service philosophy was “To ensure people are looked after to the n’th degree and are happy, safe and well”. People, relatives and staff all said the registered manager was very caring, supportive, and approachable. This was summed up by a member of staff who told us “She is approachable, positive, kind and caring. She wants the best for the people we support. She treats people like her own family. It’s like a family home not just a place to live”. A person who lived in the home said “I am enjoying it here and don’t have any problems”. A relative told us “I’m very pleased where [person’s name] is at the moment, he’s very settled”.

There was a friendly family atmosphere in the home and everyone got on well together. All of the interactions we observed between people and staff were caring and supportive. It was clear the registered manager and staff were very fond of the people who lived in the home and wanted the best for them. In turn, people told us they really liked the registered manager and all of the staff.

People were supported to visit relatives, access the community and participate in a wide range of social and leisure activities of their choice on a regular basis.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and had choice and control over their daily routines. Staff respected and acted on the decisions people made. The service knew how to protect people’s rights if they lacked the mental capacity to make certain important decisions about their care and welfare.

The service employed a small close knit team of part-time staff who were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs and preferences. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe. Staff received training and supervision to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to provide the care and support needed.

The service used a mix of informal and semi-structured quality assurance processes to help maintain and improve the quality and safety of its service provision.