• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Tavistock Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Off Queens Street, Bedford, Bedfordshire, MK40 2UD (01234) 718285

Provided and run by:
Bedford Borough Council

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Tavistock 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 Tavistock Court, you can give feedback on this service.

19 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Tavistock Court provides support to people living in their own flats within one building. The service supports older people, younger adults, people living with a physical disability, people living with a sensory impairment and people with dementia.

People’s experience of using the service: People and their relatives were extremely positive about the care and support they received.

People received care which met their needs and care was adapted to people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. People were involved in their care planning and changes to people’s care were made depending on their wishes and choices.

The staff team were passionate about providing high quality person centred care and there was a passion for keeping people independent in their own homes for as long as possible whilst keeping people safe and respecting their privacy and dignity.

People were supported to take positive risks and were protected from harm and abuse in all areas of their care including the administration of medicines. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and how to support people to be safe.

Staff recruitment procedures were through and included all necessary checks.

Staff told us they received adequate training, supervision and competency assessments to carry out their job roles effectively.

People received support from healthcare professionals. Staff worked well with these professionals to ensure that people received the support they needed.

People’s choices were respected and people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act.

People were supported to stay in their own homes and were treated with dignity and respect at the end of their life.

People were positive about the management of the service and feedback from people was used to drive improvements at the service.

The management team were passionate about providing high quality person centred care.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 10 April 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. During this inspection we found evidence continued to support the rating of good. More information is in the full report.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

10 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 10 June 2016 and was announced.

Tavistock Court provides personal care to up to 32 people living in their own homes within the Tavistock Court extra sheltered housing scheme. At the time of our inspection they were providing 27 care packages for older people, including people who may be living with dementia.

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. In addition, the registered manager was supported by two team leaders, who ensured the smooth running of the service in their absence.

People felt safe when receiving care from the service. Staff worked to protect people from avoidable harm or abuse and, if they suspected this had taken place, they were aware of the procedures in place to report it. There were systems in place to assess and manage risks to people's health and safety, whilst still promoting their independence and ability to make their own decisions. Staffing levels at the service were sufficient to meet people's needs and ensure that people did not have to wait for their care to be given. There were robust recruitment systems in place to ensure that all new staff were thoroughly checked to see if they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff members were provided with training to equip them with the skills to administer people's medication safely, and in accordance with best practice guidelines. Where appropriate, people were encouraged to manage their own medication.

New staff received induction training to help familiarise themselves with the service and the people they would be supporting. In addition, all staff received ongoing training and support from the service, including regular supervision and appraisal, to review their performance. People's consent to their care and support was sought by the service and documented in their care plans. If people were unable to provide their consent, there were systems in place to ensure the service was acting in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet and staff were able to help them prepare their choice of meals or drinks. Staff also provided people with support to book and attend appointments with healthcare professionals, such as GP's and district nurses.

There were positive relationships between people and members of staff and staff treated people with kindness and compassion. Staff had spent time getting to know people which helped them to provide people with care based on their wishes. People were involved in making decisions about their care and the running of the service. They were provided with information about their care and the service, as well as external organisations they may wish to get in touch with for additional support or advice. Staff ensured they treated people with dignity and respect at all times.

People's care was person-centred. Care plans had been written with people's involvement to ensure they were reflective of their needs, wishes and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they were accurate and up-to-date. The service had arranged a range of different activities to provide people with stimulation which helped to prevent social isolation and motivated people to maintain their independent living skills. People were aware of how to complain and there was a clear complaints procedure in place.

There was an open culture at the service. People were positive about the care they received and were happy with the staff they saw. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and were motivated to perform them well and meet people's needs. People and staff were positive about the leadership at the service. They felt well supported and were able to approach the registered manager and team leaders whenever they needed to. There were management systems in place to monitor and review the quality of care being provided and to identify areas for development.

09 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 08 June 2015.

Tavistock Court provide care and support for up to 32 people who live in an extra care sheltered housing scheme. When we visited there were 28 people living there.

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.

People felt safe in the service and were protected from harm by staff that were knowledgeable about abuse and the forms it could take.

There were suitable and sufficient risk assessment and control measures in place.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and staff had been recruited following a safe and robust process.

Medication was managed and administered appropriately.

Staff received regular training and supervision to ensure they had the skills and knowledge they needed to perform their roles.

Consent to care was sought by staff who followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 support people.

Staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink to have a healthy and balanced diet.

People had access to healthcare professionals if and when they needed.

There was not always a caring relationship between people and members of staff. Care was task-led and carers didn’t always interact with people, whilst providing them with support.

People had been involved in planning their care.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was maintained.

People did not always receive person-centred care which catered for their specific needs. People’s preferences were not always considered.

People were not always aware of how to make a complaint or provide feedback regarding the service they received.

Staff were positive about the service and were motivated to perform their roles.

The registered manager had not sent the CQC statutory notifications of abuse when safeguarding incidents took place.

Regular checks and audits were conducted to ensure standards of care were maintained.

1 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Their needs had been assessed, and risk assessments described how any identified risks to people were minimised. People received medication from staff who had been trained to administer it safely.The recruitment practice was safe and thorough, and the provider took action to ensure staff competence. People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and care plans were in place. They were happy with the care provided and their needs had been met. Staff received training to support people with various care needs. They also sought additional support from other health and social care professionals, to ensure positive care outcomes for people using the service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with the staff, that they had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. People told us the staff were caring. One person said, "The staff are very nice. We get on really well here."

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

We observed that staff responded promptly to people's needs. We saw that care plans had been updated when people's needs had changed, and that referrals had been made to other health and social care professionals when required. The service took account of individual preferences, and people were supported to access a variety of activities of their choice.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post. We saw that the provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service they provided. They regularly sought the views of people using the service and their representatives, and took account of these to improve the service.

10 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection at Tavistock Court, we met with six people and a relative to obtain their views on how they were cared for.

We found that people experienced positive outcomes where they were consulted about their wishes in consenting to their care. Staff understood the actions to take if they needed to protect people's rights.

We found people were involved in the planning of their care and it was planned to meet their individual needs. The care plans demonstrated that people had access to healthcare professionals if they needed to. People told us they felt safe and supported by the staff team.

People told us that the staff were caring and both the team leader and the manager were accessible and approachable. One person said "I love it here. The staff are so nice." another said "They help me to have a shower. Lovely they are. I do things for myself but they always come and help if I need it."

We found that people received their medication at the times required, from staff who were competent to carry this out safely.

People received a service that responded quickly to their needs and the staff employed had the necessary skills, qualifications and experience to deliver their care safely.

We found that the service was well led and the process of quality assurance was robust and responsive to people's views.

10 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people receiving care at Tavistock Court and a visiting relative. People told us they were happy with the care and support they received from staff. They said their privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

One person said the care staff were excellent,'I love it here. I am treated very well and have no complaints.'

Two other people told us they 'Can't fault the staff and care provided'.

We were told the care staff were and kind and people said they felt able to raise any concerns with them, should they arise.