Rutland Cottages

At our last inspection in December 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found that the service remained ‘Good’ for being safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff who supported the people using the service knew how to recognise and report any signs that people were abused or at risk of abuse.

The provider had assessed risks relating to people’s care to help them to remain safe whilst encouraging them to be as independent as they wanted to be. The provider had procedures in place for staff to report concerns and for those concerns to be investigated and acted upon.

There were enough suitably skilled and knowledgeable staff to provide care and support that met the needs of the people using the service. People were supported to receive their medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported with their nutritional and health needs and were supported to access health services when they requested that support.

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.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and dignity.

People had care plans in place that were focused on them as individuals. This allowed staff to provide consistent support in line with people’s personal preferences.

People’s needs were met in line with their individual care plans and assessed needs. Staff understood people’s needs and provided care and support that was tailored to their needs.

People and their relatives felt they could raise a concern and the provider had systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The provider had effective arrangements for monitoring and assessing the quality of care people experienced. These included seeking and acting upon the views for people who used the service, their relatives, staff and professionals who visited the service.

Further information is in the detailed finding below.

Rutland Cottages are a grouping of 24 cottages across the road from Rutland Care Village which is also a service run by Prime Life Limited. People who live in the cottages have the option of receiving care and support from staff working in Rutland Care Village. At the time of our inspection one person had been using the service for the last six months.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The provider had procedures for supporting people to be safe in their home. Staff understood their responsibilities under those procedures.

The provider had robust recruitment procedures that ensured as far as possible that only people suited to work at the service were employed. Staff were suitably deployed so that there were enough staff with suitable skills, knowledge and experience available to support people using the service.

Only staff who had satisfactorily completed training in medicines management and who were assessed as competent to administer people’s medicines did so.

Staff received relevant training and support to be able to deliver people’s care needs.

The provider had procedures for implementing the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities under the MCA. They sought people’s consent before performing personal care routines and proving support.

People were supported with their nutritional needs. Staff monitored the health of people using the service and involved health services, for example, people’s GP, when necessary. The provider cooperated with providers of specialist services if people required additional specialist support.

Staff were caring. They developed caring relationships with people they supported and involved then in decisions about their care. Staff treated people using the service with dignity and respect.

People’s care plans were person centred and focused on their individual needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed.

People were supported to raise concerns and their opinions and their feedback was acted upon. The views or people using the service and their relatives were sought and acted upon. Staff had opportunities to be involved in developing the service. They were supported to raise concerns. They told us they were confident their concerns would be acted upon.

The provider had effective arrangements for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service.

When we visited 08 October 2013 we found that staff recorded bruising and marks on a body chart along with any known explanation for the injuries. We spoke with one member of staff who was able to explain their responsibilities to safeguard people including how they would raise any concerns they had both within the organisation and, if required, externally.

We found that some staff were not all able to identify the possible signs and indicators of abuse.

We saw that the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We saw that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We found that records were stored securely but easily accessible when required.