Archived: ExtraCare Charitable Trust Imperial Court

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

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.

During the previous inspection we found some areas of concern in relation to the monitoring of people’s records and quality assurance systems used to drive improvement at the service.

At this inspection we saw that improvements had been made. Peoples care plans and risk assessments were regularly monitored to ensure they had been updated in accordance with any changes in their care needs. Quality audits had also been regularly completed to establish further areas for improvement at the service. Action plans were in place and were updated after checks and audits, to help develop the service. The registered manager also submitted statutory notifications to the CQC when required. In addition we found there were effective management and leadership arrangements in place. Systems were also in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Action plans were in place and were updated after checks and audits, to help further develop the service. The registered manager also submitted statutory notifications to the CQC when required.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety. There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix to support people with their care needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

Staff received a comprehensive induction process and on-going training. They were well supported by the registered manager and had regular one to one time for supervisions and annual appraisals. Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

Staff gained consent before supporting people and had signed consent within their care plans. People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required.

People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People were given choices about their day to day routines and about how they wanted their care to be delivered. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support. Care plans were detailed and provided staff with the guidance they needed to meet people’s needs. The service had a complaints procedure to enable people to raise a complaint if the need arose.

The service had a wellbeing advisor who carried out yearly health checks and helped people access GP or other health services as needed by offering advice and by advocating for people.

Staff told us that they received training and were assessed as competent before they were able to administer medication without supervision.

We found that the provider carried out appropriate checks on staff before they began working for the service.

We saw that there were systems in place to monitor care records; the care people received; medication; risk assessments and health and safety.

At the time of our visit the service was not providing the regulated activities treatment of disease, disorder or injury or diagnostics and screening procedures.