You are here

St Anne's Community Services - Phoenix Court Good


Inspection carried out on 14 March 2018

During a routine inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

This inspection took place on 14 March 2018 and was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we would be visiting.

A registered manager was 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.

Staff told us people were safe and understood safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures. People lived in a safe environment and risks to people had been identified, assessed and managed through the support planning process. The same workers provided support so people received consistent care. We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines.

Staff received training and support which enabled them to do their job well. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People received a balanced and varied diet, and accessed services which ensured their health needs were met.

Throughout the inspection we observed staff were friendly and caring in their approach. They knew people well and talked about things that were important and relevant to the person. The provider promoted people’s rights and had systems in place to ensure people were not discriminated against.

People received person centred care. Support plans were comprehensive and reviewed regularly. Annual review meetings were held which involved the person and others who were important to them. People had opportunity to engage in varied in house and community activities. They were supported to maintain relationships. Relatives we spoke with said they knew who to speak with if they wanted to discuss anything or to raise concerns. They said staff were approachable and had “time to listen”.

The registered manager had good knowledge of the day to day running of the service as well as their overall responsibilities. Relatives and staff we spoke with told us the service was organised and well managed. The provider had systems and processes in place to make sure safe quality care was being provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 12 January 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 12 January 2016 and was unannounced. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the home.

Phoenix Court is a care home registered to provide personal care with nursing for seven adults with learning disabilities. The home is a detached property located in a residential area of Todmorden close to the town centre. The accommodation is provided in single rooms on two floors. Each floor has a kitchen, a lounge and communal bathrooms and toilets.

The last inspection was carried out on 13 November 2013. At that time we found there was one breach of regulation relating to the safety of the premises. The provider sent us an action plan with details of the actions they planned to take. During this inspection we checked and found the provider had taken appropriate action.

The registered manager had been in post for approximately a year at the time of the inspection. 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.

People living at the home were safeguarded from abuse. Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse and understood their responsibilities in this area. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and all the required checks were carried out before new staff started work. This helped to protect people from the risk of receiving care and treatment from staff unsuitable to work in a care setting.

People’s medicines were managed safely. There were processes in place to check medicines and we saw when errors had occurred actions had been taken to ensure people were safe and reduce the risk of it happening again. However, we found the Commission had not always been notified about these incidents.

The home was clean, well maintained and there was evidence of on-going redecoration and refurbishment. People living at the home were involved in choosing the décor for their bedrooms.

The home was working in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which meant people’s right were protected.

People were supported to have a varied and nutrition diet which took account of their individual needs and preferences.

People needs were assessed and planned for; people were supported to have access to the full range of NHS services.

Person centred care was promoted by a model of care called Positive Behaviour Support (PBS). PBS is promoted by BILD (British Institute of Learning Disabilities) as the preferred approach when working with people with learning disabilities who exhibit behaviours described as challenging.

People’s care and support plans provided detailed information about how each person preferred their care and treatment to be delivered.

People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends and to take part in leisure activities in the home and in the community.

The complaints procedure was made available to people who used the service.

The home had a warm and friendly atmosphere and we observed a lot of positive interactions between the people who lived there and staff. The registered manager was enthusiastic and open and staff told us they were well supported and enjoyed working at the home.

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the services provided.

Inspection carried out on 13 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service could not communicate clearly so we observed staff providing support and we spoke with staff about the people who used the service. We spoke with the relatives of people who used the service. This gave us assurances that staff knew the needs of people and knew how to deliver the care and support effectively.

Our observations of the service showed that care staff spoke with and interacted with people who used the service in a patient and pleasant manner. Care staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure that people understood what was going to happen.

The people who used the service appeared happy and comfortable with the surroundings. They appeared to be relaxed with the staff in their interactions with them. We noted that people who used the service had access to a wide range of activities which were personalised to their individual needs.

Relatives we spoke with after our visit were very satisfied with the care. They told us �staff chat to us� and �we are comfortable with the way things are.� Another relative said �It�s lovely where he is� and �staff are good.�

Inspection carried out on 12 June 2012

During a routine inspection

Many of the people using the service people using the service had complex needs which meant that they were not able to tell us their experiences.

People who were able to comment told us that they enjoyed living at Phoenix Court, that the staff looked after them very well, that they felt safe living at the home and staff were kind and caring.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)