Archived: Apple Blossom Court

The home required 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. There was a registered manager in post.

People who lived in the home told us they felt safe at the home and had no worries or concerns. From our observations it was clear that staff cared for the people they looked after and knew them well. No-one we spoke with had any complaints.

We found breaches related to medicines management. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We saw that some medication records were not completed fully or properly signed for. All staff giving out medication had been medication trained.

We found that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) 2009 legislation had not been adhered to in the home. The manager told us of the people at the home who lacked capacity and that the appropriate number of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had not been submitted to the Local Authority in relation to people’s care. We were told after the inspection that this had been rectified within the week following the inspection.

The staff in the home knew the people they were supporting and the care they needed. We observed staff to be kind and respectful and the home supported the people to access a range of activities, this promoted their independence and well-being.

Staff were recruited safely and there was t evidence that staff had received a proper induction or suitable training to do their job role effectively. The majority of staff had been supervised regularly and appraised annually.

People and staff told us that the home was well led and the staff told us that they felt well supported in their roles. We saw that the managers were a visible presence in and about the home and it was obvious that they knew the people who lived in the home extremely well and that the staff were well supported to carry out their duties

People had access to sufficient quantities of nutritious food and drink throughout the day and were given suitable menu choices at each mealtime, these options had been chosen by the people who lived at Apple Blossom Court.

Since our visit we found that the provider had employed an electrical contractor who had inspected the electrical circuits on 09 June and saw they were "satisfactory".

A landlord's gas safety record had been obtained for the boilers within the home as these had been checked on 06 June.

The Fire Officer had visited the home on the 29 April and was satisfied that the premises were safe.

This means the provider had put appropriate checks in place to ensure the safety of the premises and it's suitability to accommodate vulnerable people.

We found that consultation with the people who were to move into the home to obtain their views and wishes, was in its infancy and further work was required to obtain the views and wishes of the people they intended to move. We also found that consultation with the individual's funding authorities had not happened and assessments of their needs had not taken place to ensure that their needs would be best met with a move to the home.

We went to see if people would be safe living there and to check that the home would continue to provide services in accordance with their registration.