You are here

SENSE Manor Court Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

We conducted an announced inspection at SENSE Manor Court on 06 August 2018. We gave the provider advanced notice of our visit because the people who lived there had complex needs and this would enable staff to prepare them for our visit. SENSE Manor Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

SENSE Manor Court is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for five people who have a learning disability and/or a sensory disability. At the time of our inspection visit there were five people living in the service.

A registered manager was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

During the home’s previous inspection on 7 July 2017, we rated the home overall as ‘Good’ but improvements were needed in Well Led regarding sending notifications to CQC. During this inspection, we found this improvement had been made but we found some other areas of concern and the overall rating has now changed to ‘Requires Improvement’. The details of the reasons why are explained in the summary below and in the body of the main report.

People were supported by staff who understood the risks they could face and knew how to keep them safe. Most risks to people’s health and safety were identified and action was taken when needed to reduce these, but this was not the case for using the communal grounds. There were not always sufficient or suitably skilled staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff underwent appropriate recruitment checks before they commenced their employment. People received their medicines as prescribed although they could be managed more safely. People were being protected from infection because safe practices were being followed.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision and had an understanding of their needs. People were supported to make choices and decisions for themselves. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service (do not) support this practice

People had a nutritious diet which met their needs and they were provided with any support they needed to ensure they had enough to eat and drink. Staff understood people’s healthcare needs and their role in supporting them with these. Systems were in place to ensure people lived in a properly that was well maintained.

People were cared for and supported by staff who respected them as individuals. Staff had caring relationships with people and respected their privacy and dignity. People were enabled to express the care they wanted to receive.

The lack of clear care planning meant that people may not receive the care they require. People were encouraged and supported to participate in meaningful interaction and activities. People would be supported to raise any complaints or concerns they had which would be dealt with. People’s end of life wishes were known so that these could be acted upon when needed.

Staff worked well as a team and felt supported with their work by the registered manager. We have made a recommendation about improving the systems in place for auditing and monitoring the service as they were not effective in identifying where improvements were needed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

People were not always supported by a sufficient number of staff or by staff who regularly supported them. Staff were recruited following safe recruitment procedures.

People felt safe using the service and staff looked for any potential risk of abuse and knew what to do if they had any concerns.

Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and staff were informed about how to provide safe care and support.

People received the support they required to ensure they took their medicines but improvements could be made to the storage arrangements for these.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision and had an understanding of people’s care needs.

Peoples were supported to make choices and decisions they had the capacity to. When needed people’s capacity to make decisions was assessed. DoLS had been applied for when required.

People were provided with a nutritious diet and received the support they needed to have sufficient to eat and drink. Staff understood people’s healthcare needs and their role in supporting them with these.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for and supported by staff who respected them as individuals.

People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their own care.

Staff had positive relationships with people and respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

People may not receive the care and support intended due to a lack of lack of care planning. People were provided with meaningful interaction and activities.

Any complaints or concerns were be acted upon and dealt with. People knew how to raise any complaints or concerns they had and felt confident that these would be dealt with.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

The systems in place to audit and monitor the service were not identifying improvements needed.

People and their relatives had opportunities to provide feedback and make suggestions.

Staff were provided with support and guidance about their role.

.