Prema Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. Scores and ratings have not been changed for this assessment and are based on the previous inspection. This is because no regulated activity was being delivered at the time of this assessment.

This service scored 34 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service and how learning has been embedded in practice.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.Two local authorities had made the decision not to commission any new placements with the service. A number of people previously living at Prema Court had been supported to find alternative accommodation.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service and the effectiveness of the processes in place.

Systems and processes in relation to the protection of people and their rights, had been reviewed and updated. This included policies and procedures to guide staff as well as training in safeguarding, Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

Staff spoken with were aware of the safeguarding procedures and confirmed they had completed relevant training. Staff said they felt able to raise any concerns with the manager and felt they would be listened to.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.

Theproviderdid not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Extensive improvements were still required to the facilities and premises to support the safe and effective delivery of care and support.

Ongoing work was being completed to the current living area. We saw toilets, bathroom and ensuites had been refurbished with new flooring fitted in satellite kitchen, toilet/bathroom and dining room. In addition, the dining room had been rearranged providing a recreational area with a pool/table tennis table. There was also a new servery along with a breakfast area so people could make their own drinks or snacks. However, considerable work was still required to the upper floors of Clifton House and Brook House as these were unoccupied. Senior managers expressed their commitment in making the necessary improvements throughout the home, should occupancy increase.

Following our last assessment, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) issued enforcement notices requiring the provider to make improvement in relation to fire safety within the home. Work had been completed to the ground floor living area. This included, new fire doors providing compartmentation, a new evacuation plan, up to date personal emergency evacuation plans as a well as additional evacuation training/drills being carried out. Due to the current occupancy levels GMFRS made the decision to close the enforcement notices. However, the provider has been advised further action must be taken to ensure the safety and suitability of the premises should occupancy increase.

Regular maintenance and safety checks of the premises and equipment were ongoing.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the reduced occupancy no new staff appointments had been made. The staff team was stable with a number of staff having worked at the home for many years. Further recruitment would be required should occupancy increase.

Records showed, and staff confirmed, there was a programme of training and support provided. Training comprised of both e-learning and face to face courses. Recent training had included first aid and behaviours that challenge. In addition, staff had received individual supervision meetings providing opportunities for them to discuss their work. However, we were unable to evidence the effectiveness of such training as the regulated activity was not being provided. Further opportunities would also need to be explored depending on the assessed needs of any new people moving into the home.

A detailed induction programme had been developed. This covered the first 6 months of employment and included an initial 12 - week induction, training plan and a review of probationary period. As there had been no new staff appointed, we were not able to review the effectiveness of the programme.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The upper floors of Clifton House and Brook House were not currently in use. The 3 people were currently residing on the ground floor of Clifton House.We found the living areas were visibly cleaner. Improvements to the current living environment had helped to improve hygiene standards. Ongoing improvements were still required to the upper floors of Clifton House and Brook House.

The laundry area was well organised and provided designated areas for management of ‘dirty’ and ’clean’ items helping to prevent any cross infection. Action had been taken to help improve hygiene standards in the main and satellite kitchen on the ground floor.

Infection control audits had been completed. These showed hygiene standards had been addressed with an improved level of compliance, from 66 % to the most recent audit which was rated 90%.

Care staff worked alongside housekeeping staff in completing domestics tasks throughout the home. Staff had access to relevant policies and procedures as well as staff training in infection prevention and control. Personal protective equipment was also available.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.

Policies and procedures were in place for the management and administration of people’s prescribed medication. Staff had completed relevant training, a period of shadowing experienced staff prior to an assessment of competency being carried out to check practice was safe.

Regular audits and checks were now being made to check accurate stocks were maintained and administration records were accurate and complete. Any areas for improvement were incorporated in the service improvement plan, which was kept under review.