Background to this inspection
Updated
9 November 2017
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.
The inspection visit was carried out on 8 and 9 August 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice we would be coming. This was so they could ensure staff were available to speak with us and people made aware we may wish to speak with them. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Before our inspection visit, we asked the provider to send to us a Provider Information Return (PIR). This document enables the provider to give us key information about the service, what it does well and what improvements they plan to make. We were able to review the information as part of our evidence when conducting our inspection. We found the information contained in the PIR reflected the service.
We also reviewed the information we held about the service. This included information received from the local authority commissioners and the statutory notifications the registered manager had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Commissioners are people who contract services, and monitor the care and support the service provides, when services are paid for by the local authority.
We spoke with five people and two relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager and five staff that worked at the service.
We reviewed care plans for two people including their daily records to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We looked at other records related to people’s care and how the service operated. These included the staff duty rotas and details of calls, medicine records, the processes for managing complaints, staff recruitment records and the service’s quality records. Quality records included audits and notes of meetings with people and staff. We also viewed information relating to training of staff and accreditation awards the service had achieved.
Updated
9 November 2017
This inspection took place on 8 and 9 August 2017. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of our visit so they could arrange for people and staff to be available to talk with us about the service.
Humber Court provides personal care and support to older people who live in their own flats located within the premises at Abbey Park. There are 46 flats and at the time of our visit 23 people were receiving support with personal care.
At the last inspection in July 2015, the service was rated 'Good'. We found the service continued to be good but was exceptionally well led.
There was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The feedback we received from people was very positive. People told us they had trust in staff and the management and they considered the service to be friendly and homely.
People shared positive relationships with staff and were extremely complimentary of them and the care they received. People felt consulted and listened to about how their care should be delivered. People and staff spoke very highly of the registered manager and gave very positive feedback about them. We found the registered manager to be committed and passionate about their role in providing a quality service to people. They recognised the importance of providing care and support in accordance with people’s wishes to enhance their lives. This included providing social and community engagement opportunities for people, which was evident throughout our inspection.
There were examples of the service being exceptionally responsive to supporting people whose needs were complex and tended to change. People we spoke with could not think of anything about the service that could be improved.
People at Humber Court were able to access in-house healthcare professionals when required, this included an in-house wellbeing nurse. They were also supported to access GP’s and hospital services if needed to maintain their health.
The provider valued their staff team and actions were taken to develop staff to their full potential. Some staff had worked for the service for a number of years demonstrating their commitment to the service and the people they supported. The staff were actively encouraged to share innovative ideas and be involved in projects which would enhance people’s lives. Staff told us they felt valued and respected. They fully understood their role and the importance of implementing the values of the organisation so people received personalised care.
The provider was committed to ensure people received the quality of care and services they would expect. They checked the quality of service through regular communication with people and staff and audit checks of the service. There were ‘resident meetings’ and a programme of checks and audits completed by the registered manager to support this process. The provider understood that people’s experiences were key in providing a quality service and also in ensuring it continuously improved.
The registered manager made sure staff had a full understanding of people’s needs. Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting people's independence and worked closely with people to make sure they were confident in their abilities. Care staff assisted people to prepare meals, or attend the restaurant at Humber Court if they wished where a choice of nutritious meals were available.
The safety of people at the service was taken very seriously, staff had been trained to protect people and identify signs of abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities to follow the provider's policies in relation to safeguarding people and reported any concerns they identified to the registered manager. Risks associated with people’s care had been assessed and actions implemented to manage them.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and to ensure all calls were covered. Recruitment processes ensured staff were safe and suitable to work with people. People told us staff had the right skills and experience to provide the care and support they required and did not rush their care. Medicines were managed safely and people told us they were supported with medicines when needed.
Care plans contained relevant information to help staff provide the personalised care people required. They centred on people's abilities, preferences and wishes. People's history, family relationships and religious and cultural needs were taken into account. To maintain people’s wellbeing and prevent social isolation, there was a programme of social activities and entertainment provided that people could choose to attend.
The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and supported people in line with these principles. People were involved in their care and their opinions were sought about the service they received to make sure this met their preferences. People felt confident to raise any concerns or issues with the registered manager or staff if they needed to. Complaints were viewed as learning opportunities and actions were taken to ensure they were investigated and resolved to people’s satisfaction.