Archived: Priory Court Limited

Updated 16 July 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 23 March 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the providers offered a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that we could access staff and people who used the service at the time of our visit.

The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service including notifications and information received from members of the public. We also invited the local authority to provide us with any information they held about Priory Court DCA. We used this information to help to plan our inspection.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. We visited one person in their home. We spoke with two duty managers and the registered manager. We also spoke with one house keeping assistant who was currently providing personal care to one person who lived at Priory Court.

We looked at one person’s care records and a variety of documents which related to the management of the service.

Updated 16 July 2016

This inspection was announced and took place on the 23 March 2016. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone was available in the office as well as giving notice to people who used the service that we would like to visit them at home. At our previous inspection in October 2013 we found that the registered provider was meeting the regulations in relation to the outcomes we inspected.

Priory Court is a complex providing 44 owner occupied apartments. The complex provides a range of communal facilities including a lounge, dining room and parking. Staff are available 24 hours a day to provide general support. If needed people can purchase a care package from Priory Court to support them with their personal care. It is this part of the service that is registered with the Care Quality Commission to carry out the regulated activity 'personal care'.

At the time of the inspection only one person was receiving personal care.

Priory Court has 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.

The registered manager was based in the office and had oversight of the service. Day to day management in the settings where support was provided was undertaken by five duty managers who were rostered to provide support throughout the day and night hours.

The service had a range of policies and procedures in place which helped staff refer to good practice and included guidance on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant that the staff members were aware of people's rights to make their own decisions. They were also aware of the need to protect people's rights if they had difficulty in making decisions for themselves.

We asked staff members about training and they confirmed that they received regular training throughout the year, they described this as their CPD (continuous professional development) training and that it was up to date. Staff training files looked at confirmed that they received regular updated training

We looked at one person’s care file in the office and also viewed the copy they held within their own home. Both explained what was important to the individual and how best to support them. This meant that staff had access to relevant information around what support people required, which helped to ensure that people’s needs continued to be met.

Staff members we spoke with were positive about how the service was being managed. During the visit we observed them interacting with the people they were supporting in a professional, caring and friendly manner. All of the staff members we spoke with were positive about the service and the quality of the support being provided.

We found that the provider used a variety of methods in order to assess the quality of the service they were providing to people. These included regular audits on areas such as the care files, including risk assessments, medication, individual finances and staff training. The records were being maintained properly.

During our visit to this location, there was one person who received support with personal care. We spoke with this person who made positive comments about the staff team who assisted them once a week with various personal care needs.

During our inspection, we looked at the file of the person who received personal care support. We found they had been involved in the care planning process. This helped to ensure support was provided in a way they wished it to be.

Consent forms had been signed by the person in relation to granting permission for staff to enter and leave their apartments using a master key. The consent form stated 'I consent to staff sharing information with other agencies to assist with my care package, to protect me from risk or harm, to enable me to gain the best possible outcome and to receive the right level of service'.

The plan of care for one person recorded, 'Apply prescribed cream to legs when instructed

by (name removed) or assist with shower at persons request. This showed the individual had control over the treatment she received. The person confirmed staff were very respectful and always asked permission before any tasks were conducted.