You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 January 2012
Date of Publication: 27 January 2012
Inspection Report published 27 January 2012 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

Our judgement

There were effective quality assurance systems in place. These ensured that people's views were taken into account and that improvements to the service occurred.

User experience

We found concerns in relation to this outcome on our last inspection of Gregory Court on 12 October 2011. This inspection was used to check on improvements made by the provider Disabilities Trust and to assess compliance.

We spoke to people who used the service. One person told us they were not regularly asked for their opinion but they were asked to fill in questionnaires occasionally. They told us that they were able to attend residents meetings. Care records showed that people were having regular individual discussions with their key workers. These documented issues raised by the person and the action staff took to resolve them.

One person told us, “It’s the best it’s ever been here. They have had their problems but they have been working through them and it’s really good now.” They also said that the acting manager was very approachable and that she was quick to resolve issues.

Other evidence

We found concerns in relation to this outcome on our last inspection of Gregory Court on 12 October 2011. This inspection was used to check on improvements made by the provider Disabilities Trust and to assess compliance.

We received an action plan from the provider as a result of our last inspection. In it, they told us that they would, 'Advertise/appoint permanent service manager. A seeking your views\satisfaction questionnaire to be sent to all stakeholders. All key workers to diarise regular time with individual service users. Implement daily handover with person in charge of shift. Weekly audit of daily narratives.' They told us these improvements would be completed by the end of November 2011.

During our visit the acting manager told us that she was checking care records completed by care workers. She was also checking incident forms and signing them. An annual quality assurance report was seen that had been undertaken by Disabilities Trust in August 2011. The acting manager told us that the current quality assurance officer for Disabilities Trust had visited to monitor the progress of the action plan.

We saw a monthly monitoring report undertaken by Disabilities Trust divisional manager. This showed that all aspects of the service were subject to internal quality monitoring. We also saw records of ongoing internal monitoring which took place during November and December by the acting manager. Areas monitored included care records, complaints and medication. Action points were recorded to show what corrective actions were needed.

The acting manager told us that the manager post had been advertised and that they would be interviewing shortly.

We saw minutes of a 'resident’s meeting' that took place in November 2011. This recorded that everyone had been given the opportunity to say what improvements could be made to the service. It included who was responsible for pursuing action points and when improvements should be achieved. One of the people who used the service was due to chair the next meeting. This was due to be held the day after our inspection. A list of future meeting dates was seen in the acting managers' office. This showed that they were planned for various times of the day so all people could attend some meetings. There was a rolling chairperson identified from the existing group of people living in the home.