Archived: Osborne Court

Osborne Court is a service provided by a local authority. The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 13 people for short periods of time, for example a few weeks. Staff provide support for people with a variety of complex needs including mental and physical health needs. At the time of the inspection, five people were receiving care at the service. Osborne Court can also provide personal care and accommodation should emergency care be needed for a short period of time.

People had a limited ability to verbally communicate with us or engage directly in the inspection process. People demonstrated that they were happy by showing warmth to the staff that were supporting them. Staff were attentive and communicated with people in a warm and friendly manner. Staff were available throughout the day, and responded quickly to people’s requests for care and support. We observed staff supporting people with their daily activities.

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.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Management understood when an application should be made. They were aware of the Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty. The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were protected against the risk of abuse. People indicated they felt safe. Staff had been trained and recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for. Management and staff understood their role and responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident in doing so.

There were enough staff with the skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

People demonstrated that they were happy at the service by smiling and chatting with staff who were supporting them. Staff interacted well with people, and supported them when they needed it.

There were risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.

People and their relatives were involved in planning their own care, and staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs. Staff contacted other health and social care professionals for support and advice, such as doctors, speech and language therapist (SALT) and dieticians.

Medicines were managed, stored, disposed of and administered safely. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

People were provided with a diet that met their needs and wishes. Menus offered variety and choice. People said they liked the food. Staff respected people and we saw several instances of a kindly touch or a joke and conversation as drinks or the lunch was served.

People were given individual support to take part in their preferred hobbies and interests. Staff encouraged people to undertake activities and spent time engaging people in conversations, and spoke to them politely and respectfully.

Management investigated and responded to people’s complaints. People knew how to raise any concerns and relatives were confident that the registered manager dealt with them appropriately and resolved them where possible.

There were systems in place to obtain people’s views about the service. These included formal and informal meetings; events; questionnaires; and daily contact with management and staff.

The provider and registered manager regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. The providers and registered manager understood the requirements of their registration with the CQC.

During this inspection, we considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer our five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and the staff told us. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

CQC monitors the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to residential units. We spoke with the manager and they demonstrated their knowledge of the procedures to follow if an application needed to be made to deprive a person of their liberty. We saw evidence that an application had been submitted following correct procedures and that proper policies relating to DoLS were in place. We saw evidence that all staff had been trained in DoLS, in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. We found that people's mental capacity was assessed and best interest meetings were held according to legal requirements. We found risk assessments with clear action plans were in place to ensure people remained safe.

Is the service effective?

People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with the quality of care that had been delivered. A relative of a person who used the service said, "My family member goes there for one week every eight weeks, and I get a full report about their stay, their health, appetite and activities when I collect them". We saw that the delivery of care was in line with people's care plans and assessed needs. Staff received additional training when needed and when they requested it. Additional training included autism awareness, dementia and challenging behaviour.

Is the service caring?

We found that the people who stayed in Osborne Court were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and noted how staff provided encouragement, reassurance and practical help. Request for assistance were responded to promptly. We saw that staff showed kindness and patience when they supported people at mealtimes or during activities. A relative of a person who used the service told us, "They are very caring and patient". Another said, "They treat my family member as an equal and listen to them".

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and their support plans were reviewed regularly to reflect any change in their needs. We saw that people's records included their history, wishes and preferences and goals to be achieved. A person who used the service told us, "I am going to a school ball and they helped me with everything". A relative of people who used the service told us, "They always find what people would like to do and talk through the options with them". People participated with the planning of menus and they told us, "I like the food here". A relative of a person who used the service regularly said, "As soon as my family member arrives there they asked when is dinner time".

Is the service well-led?

We found that comprehensive policies and procedures were in place that addressed every aspect of the service. The manager operated a system of quality assurance and completed audits to identify how to improve the service. When audits identified the need for an improvement, this was implemented. People and their relatives or representatives, health care professionals and staff were consulted about how the service was run. Annual survey questionnaires were provided or sent and the results were analysed. A member of staff told us, "There is an open door policy, we can walk in the office and talk with the manager or the team leader if we prefer about anything and they will listen".

We observed that care and support was delivered with warmth, kindness and dedication. The relationship between the staff and the people who lived there was good and personal support was provided in a way that promoted and protected people's privacy and dignity. We found that people's concerns were listened to, and action was taken to address any issues identified.

People were asked for their consent before any care or treatment was given.

The arrangements for supporting people to make decisions about their daily lives and preferences were recorded in their support plans.

Medicines were handled appropriately and people who used the service had their medicines given to them in a safe way.

We found that there was a robust recruitment process in place that helped to make sure that only people who were deemed as suitable were employed to care for people who used the service.

Effective quality assurance procedures ensured that people were provided with a good service.

Comments received from telephone calls made following a period of respite care included 'Brilliant as usual'; 'Stay went well, very pleased with care'; 'X comes home happy. Everything is fine. Thank you to everyone'; and 'Had a good time and X knows that she is safe and can relax'.

The person in charge told us that they always ensured that they carefully assessed the support needs of people living in the home. People, their relatives or representatives and health care professionals, where necessary, were involved in this process. The arrangements for supporting people to make decisions about their daily lives and preferences were recorded in their support plans.

We observed that care and support was delivered with warmth, kindness and dedication. The relationship between the staff and the people who lived there was good and personal support was provided in a way that promoted and protected people's privacy and dignity. We found that people's concerns were listened to, and action was taken to address any issues identified.

The arrangements for keeping the home clean and tidy were satisfactory. The standard of the accommodation, d'cor, and furniture and fittings was good and provided a clean and comfortable place to live.

Staff received ongoing training, and had regular supervision and appraisals.