You are here

ExtraCare Charitable Trust Reeve Court Village Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 22 July 2016

The inspection was announced and took place on 7, 9 and 10 June 2016.

Reeve Court Village is a care at home service provided by Extra Care Charitable Trust. Reeve Court is situated on the outskirts of St Helens, Merseyside. The service is an Extra Care Housing Scheme which is registered as a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to some of the people living at the complex.

During our inspection the registered manager was present. 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 consistently good. People that used the service expressed satisfaction and spoke highly of the registered manager. One person said “I cannot speak highly enough of everyone at Reeve Court”.

People were supported to take their medicines by staff who were appropriately trained. People received care and support from staff that knew them very well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s individual needs. People told us staff always treated them well and promoted their choices regarding their care, support and the activities they participated in. People and their relatives spoke very positively about staff, their comments included, “I have had consistently good support over the last three years” and ”The staff are well trained and highly skilled”.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and understood fully how to recognise and report any abuse. The service had policies and procedures in place that informed staff of how to keep people safe and these were followed.

Staffing ratios were in place to meet people’s assessed needs and were responsive to people’s changing needs and preferences. This enabled people to make full use of all of the facilities the complex had to offer, to go out on trips, both as a group and individually, and to experience attentive support.

People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which helped the registered provider determine whether they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment. Staff completed a comprehensive induction programme which included competency assessments.

Risks associated with people’s care needs were anticipated, identified and monitored. Staff managed risk effectively and supported people’s decisions, so they had as much control and independence as possible. This ensured people’s safety was maintained.

Care plans and risk assessments provided staff with clear direction and guidance as to how to meet people’s individual needs. People said they were fully involved in the development of their care plans. This meant people received person centred care in a way that was meaningful to them.

People knew how to raise concerns and make complaints. People and their relatives who had raised concerns confirmed they had been dealt with promptly and satisfactorily.

There was a management structure within the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. There was a positive culture within the service, the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. Staff said “I feel well supported by the company and think all staff are recognised and valued” and “We all work well as a team and value each others skills and knowledge”.

There were quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed. Members of the management team were visible in the service and regularly visited people and sought their views about the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 22 July 2016

The service was safe.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People were supported by staff who had an understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse.

Procedures and processes were in place to help ensure that people received their medicines safely.



Updated 22 July 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the right competencies, knowledge and skills to meet their individual needs.

People were supported by staff who confidently made use of their knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were involved in decisions about their care and support.

People were supported with their health and dietary needs.



Updated 22 July 2016

The service was caring.

Staff built relationships with people who used the service and were given ample time to meet people’s needs.

People were supported by staff that were focused on promoting and maintaining their independence.

Staff respected people’s dignity and maintained their privacy.



Updated 22 July 2016

The service was responsive.

Care records were personalised and focused on a person’s whole life. Staff had a good understanding of how people wanted to be supported.

People were empowered by staff to be involved in identifying their choices and preferences, and have as much control and independence as possible.

People were actively encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints as part of driving improvements.



Updated 22 July 2016

The service was well led.

Management were approachable and had clear values that were understood by staff and put into practice.

Staff demonstrated that they were motivated to develop and provide quality care.

Quality assurance systems drove improvements and raised standards of care. New ideas were promoted and implemented to provide a quality service.