30 September and 1 October 2015
During a routine inspection
We visited James Terry Court on 30 September and 1 October 2015.
The inspection was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 7 June 2013 when it was found the service was meeting the regulations we inspected.
The service provides residential care and nursing care for up to 76 older people with a range of needs associated with old age including people living with dementia. The home is divided into a residential unit, a nursing unit and a dementia support unit. At the time of the inspection the service was caring for 74 people and two people were due to fill the remaining beds.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
Care records were not always fit for purpose. We found parts of the record were not always put back in the right place; additional records were inserted in an ad hoc manner; some parts were incomplete; some records had not been reviewed; and, entries not dated. You can see the action we told the provider to take at the end of the full version of the report.
People at the service felt safe. Staff had completed knew how to recognise and report abuse and how to escalate concerns. They had completed safeguarding of adults training. People’s needs were assessed and risk assessments recorded. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment procedures were followed. The service provided a safe and comfortable environment for people, staff and visitors. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Medicines were safely administered.
Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver safe and effective care, support and treatment. The provider ensured staff were trained and supported with regular supervision sessions and appraisals. Mental capacity assessments were completed to establish people’s capacity to make decisions although these were could be improved and in some records were missing. Where it was necessary to deprive people of their liberty to deliver care and support the service had applied for authorisations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff demonstrated an understanding of mental capacity and DoLS and had completed relevant training. People were supported to have a healthy diet and to maintain good health. Individual needs had been met by the adaptation, design and decoration of the service.
People and visitors commented positively about relationships with staff and care was delivered in a patient, friendly and sensitive manner. People and their representatives were supported to express their views. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.
Care plans were person centred and addressed a wide range of social and healthcare needs. People were encouraged to take part in activities to reduce the risks of social isolation and loneliness. A range of activities were available to people. The provider had systems to obtain feedback about the quality of the service they provided in order improve.
Staff spoke positively about the management team who had an open door policy if people, visitors of staff wanted to speak with them. Regular staff meetings were planned to exchange information and obtain feedback. The provider had a system of audits and surveys to monitor and assess the quality of service they provided.