We carried out a review of the data available to us about Station Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Station Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ Systems were in place to help prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.
¿ There was sufficient PPE such as aprons, gloves and masks. Staff were wearing this appropriately when we visited. Staff had undertaken training in putting on and taking off PPE.
¿ Staff and people were tested regularly for COVID-19. A COVID-19 vaccination programme was in place.
¿ Staff spoke positively about working at the home and the people they supported. They explained they had worked as a team to help promote people’s wellbeing throughout the pandemic. We observed positive interactions between staff and people. One person told us, "They have fantastic staff here. They are great - never rude."
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ Systems were in place to check any visitors before they entered the home to reduce the potential spread of infection.
¿ Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) and management staff checked they did this in the right way. Staff had training in infection prevention and control measures and PPE.
¿ Social distancing was encouraged, and furniture had been rearranged to promote this.
¿ Regular testing for Covid-19 was in place for people and the staff team.
¿ The home looked clean and housekeeping staff made sure they frequently cleaned key touch points, such as handrails and door handles.
Further information is in the findings below.
At our last inspection in March 2017, we identified a breach in the regulation relating to safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment. Applications to the local authority to deprive people of their liberty had not all been made in a timely manner. Best interests decisions were not always in place in relation to any restraints used such as lap belts, where people lacked capacity. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements and this action has been completed.
People told us they felt safe living at Station Court. There continued to be systems in place to protect people from abuse including policies and procedures for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults, safe recruitment processes, and suitable numbers of staff.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored for patterns or trends to help prevent reoccurrence. Risks to individuals were assessed as were risks associated with the premises and equipment. Infection control procedures were followed by staff.
Medicines continued to be safely managed and regular medicine audits were carried out. Staff competency to administer medicines was checked on a regular basis.
There had been a major programme of refurbishment which included redecoration of most areas in the home. The home was clean and well maintained and people told us they were happy with the results. The provider told us they would ensure best practice in dementia design was considered for the memory lane unit which was due to be refurbished at a later date.
People were supported with eating and drinking. Where people were found to be losing weight or had swallowing difficulties, staff consulted relevant health professionals.
Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisals. They told us they felt well supported. Compliance with training deemed mandatory by the provider was monitored closely.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Improvements had been made to records relating to mental capacity and consent. There was some variation in the quality and detail of records relating to best interests decisions. We spoke with the registered manager about this who told us they were arranging further training.
We observed numerous kind and caring interactions between staff and people during our inspection. People told us they were well cared for and were happy with the care provided at Station Court.
Where possible, people were supported to maintain their independence and were offered choices. Visual aids and easy read material were used to help people with difficulty communicating.
Person centred care plans were in place which were up to date and regularly reviewed. Some information held in care records was duplicated. We spoke with the registered manager about this who said they would review records with a view to streamlining where possible.
A complaints procedure was in place and complaints had been responded to in line with the company policy.
We observed a number of activities taking place during our inspection and an additional activities coordinator had been appointed to improve access to activities in the home.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. People and relatives told us the home was well-led and the registered manager was approachable and helpful. There were close links with the local community and morale was good in the home.
We last inspected the service in December 2014 and we found the service was meeting all of the regulations we inspected.
Station Court is a care home providing care to a maximum of 63 older people; some of whom were living with dementia. Nursing care is not provided. The accommodation is provided across two floors. People who were living with dementia were accommodated on the first floor. There were 59 people using the service at the time of the inspection.
We found that during our inspection, a high number of DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) applications had been made the day before our second visit to the local authority for authorisation. These had not been submitted in a timely manner. Where people lacked capacity, best interests decisions about the use of lap belts or specialist chairs which restricted people's movement for their safety, were not always recorded. The service was not fully compliant with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.
People had access to a range of care professionals. We found a discrepancy in the care records of one person where it stated they did not have a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNAR) order in place when in fact they did. We spoke with the registered manager about this who rectified the record immediately.
We found the service continued to be safe. There were safe procedures in place relating to the administration of medicines, staffing and recruitment practices, safeguarding of vulnerable adults, prevention of infection, and the management of accidents and incidents.
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.
There were systems in place to maintain the security of the premises. Staff received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and told us they knew what to do in the event of concerns of a safeguarding nature. Risks related to the premises and individual people were assessed and plans were in place to mitigate these. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed for any pattern or trends.
People were supported with eating and drinking and we found that dietary advice had been sought for people deemed at risk of malnutrition. On the first day of the inspection we found the ground floor dining area to be cramped which impacted upon the quality of the mealtime experience. On the second day of the inspection, this had been addressed. The meal was better organised and the dining room was less congested.
A number of improvements had been made to the premises, including the replacement of carpets and furnishings. The home was clean and tidy and well maintained.
Staff received regular training, supervision and an annual appraisal. They told us they felt well supported by the registered manager.
We observed kind, caring and courteous interactions between staff and people using the service. Care and support was provided discreetly and sensitively. The registered manager was keen to involve people that used the service in the running of the home, and had created two 'resident ambassador' roles to help support people living in the home to share their views. End of life care was not being provided at the time of our inspection but staff had received training and guidance in this area, with support from district nurses. We received positive feedback from a district nurse about working closely with staff caring for people approaching the end of their life.
Person centred care plans were in place which reflected people's physical and psychological needs and their personal wishes and preferences. We found gaps in the evaluations of some care plans but noted this had improved of late and at the time of the inspection the care plans we checked had been reviewed. The registered manager and staff knew people well, and information handed over between shifts was detailed.
There were mixed views about the activities available. Some people told us there were insufficient opportunities to engage in social activities and other people were happy with the activities available. We observed a number of activities taking place during the inspection, and the registered manager told us they were in the process of recruiting additional activities staff with a view to increasing the activities available.
There had been no recent formal complaints at the time of the inspection. The registered manager kept records of informal complaints to enable them to identify patterns or trends.
The registered manager had recently returned full time to the home, having been supporting another of the provider's services locally. People and relatives told us they had noticed a slight dip in quality during this time. We found that audits had not picked up all of the issues we found at the inspection but the registered manager recognised the areas for improvement and was working towards addressing these.
The registered manager responded positively to feedback during the inspection and addressed some issues during the inspection. People, staff and relatives told us the manager was friendly and approachable, and staff had clear expectations of the standard of care expected of them.
We found one breach of The Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 related to; Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
This inspection took place on 1, 2 and 3 December 2014 and was unannounced.
We last inspected Station Court on 18 July 2013. At this inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations we inspected.
Station Court is a care home providing care to a maximum of 63 older people; some of whom were living with dementia. Nursing care is not provided. The accommodation is provided across two floors. People who were living with dementia were accommodated on the first floor. There were 60 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
The home had a registered manager who was on long term leave at the time of the inspection. A temporary manager was in charge of the home. The temporary manager was registered with us in respect of another location.
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.
We found people were safe at the service. The building was clean and well maintained, no trip hazards were noted, risks were assessed and staff were trained in safety, emergency and safeguarding procedures. The service had sufficient staff on duty. Staff recruitment, staff disciplinary processes and the arrangements for managing medicines ensured, as far as possible, people were protected from harm. The service had clear, accessible written policies and procedures concerning safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistleblowing. Staff confirmed they were trained in and understood safeguarding procedures.
Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff received regular training to ensure they had up to date information to undertake their roles and responsibilities. Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Menus and food stocks showed people had a varied diet. Arrangements for special diets, support with eating and presentation of food were satisfactory.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were afforded choices with regard to activities and getting out and about
People told us that they, and their families, had been included in planning and agreeing to the care provided. We saw that people had an individual plan, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. We found people’s support was provided as detailed in their care plans and people’s needs had been thoroughly assessed. This meant people received support in the way they needed it. The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were provided with a wide range of imaginative activities. The provider had an effective system for responding to concerns and complaints.
The provider monitored the service well through a combination of audits carried out by the staff at the service, quality assurance visits by the provider’s representatives, gathering of data from the service and use of surveys.
We found people had their needs assessed and their care was delivered safely and in line with their care plan. One relative said the following about the care at Station Court, "I can only praise Station Court, the manager is quite proactive, the staff sit and talk to people, there are activities, people are clean and tidy, everyone gets the same level of care regardless of how they pay. The staff are pleasant, helpful and there is an open door policy- nothing to hide."
Another relative said, "I can't praise them enough, they are really very good. Mum was discharged from hospital quite early and the care at the home has been exceptional. Her medication is good, falls and weight are monitored and the care is very person centred."
We found the provider had systems in place to protect people from harm of unsafe use of medicines. One of the people we spoke with said, "The staff let me look after my eye drops myself, because they know I can manage this and I like to do it myself. They keep a check on me even though I still do quite a lot for myself."
We found appropriate arrangements for providing sufficient, suitably maintained equipment, for promoting people's safety, comfort and independence.
The provider had effective staff recruitment procedures.
We saw that people's care was planned and delivered in line with their expectations. For example, we saw people were offered choices at mealtimes and helped to make decisions regarding where they wanted to eat and whether they wanted pain relief. People told us they were happy with the care. One person described it as, "Splendid, it is not like a home it is like a hotel. We get a proper breakfast, the food is good, we get to go on trips, it's all good." Another person said, "We can do as we want to. I can sit here and enjoy the company, or I can stay in my room. I like it here and I am treated well. They respect my dignity." The visitors we spoke to also said they were happy with the home. One person said, "It's a nice home, the staff are very good."
We saw staff interacted very naturally with people in passing, saying hello and using people's names. We found that staff were supported to care for people and relatives felt able to take their concerns to the staff.
The premises and grounds were well presented and maintained.
there were activities and things to do. They also said they enjoyed the company and the
staff were very kind and caring. Comments included:
"It's marvellous living here."
"Being here is like coming home to me."
"I'm happy here."
'It's marvellous living here.'
'Being here is like coming home to me.'
'I'm happy here.'
'The girls (staff) often come and talk to me.'
'Everybody is kind to me.'
'I get enough attention.'
'I like the company here. When you're by yourself, this is very important.'
'They're caring girls.'
' We have a good relationship with the carers.'