Archived: North Paddock Court

There was a registered manager in post. 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 were not always able to receive the care and support they required because of the way the provider had set up arrangements for reviews to people’s care. The manager and staff were reliant on the support and involvement of a clinical team that were not based at the home. As a result people’s care plans and risk assessments were not updated, reviewed, or created in a timely manner and as people’s needs changed which put people at risk of not receiving the care they required.

Improvements were required to the risk assessment, and care planning procedures to ensure they were in place to meet people’s current needs, and were reviewed on a regular basis. Further improvements were also required to the quality assurance systems in place by the registered manager to ensure they identified and actioned areas of care that required improving.

People felt safe living in the home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people and recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the job.

People received care from staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People received care that was person centred and focussed on empowering people; personal choice, ownership for decisions and people being in control of their life. People were empowered to complete activities and tasks they enjoyed and were in control of how they did this. Staff were passionate about providing good care and people were relaxed around staff.

Procedures were in place to ensure staff could meet people’s needs before they moved into the home. People were encouraged to make their own choices, and staff supported people to achieve their goals. There was a suitable complaints procedure in place.

The culture within the home focussed on people’s individual needs and on supporting people to be as independent as they could. Staff worked well together as a team to ensure a consistent approach consistent with the provider’s values.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Checks of the environment were made to identify any maintenance requirements and make sure that it remained safe.

The person who used the service told us that they felt safe and that they had no concerns about how staff treated them. They knew what abuse was and said 'None of that goes on here.' They told us that they had people they could speak with if they had any concerns. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to reporting any suspicions of abuse and safeguarding the vulnerable adults in their care.

We saw that checks had been carried out on the management of people's finances. However, it was not clear from the records how robust the checks were as they did not make it clear exactly what had been checked.

Is the service effective?

The person who used the service told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. We saw that their needs had been assessed and care plans developed according to their needs, wishes and aspirations.

It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with the person who used the service, that staff understood people's care and support needs and knew them well.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff approach the person who used the service in a caring manner. Conversations were calm and relaxed and staff treated people with dignity and respect. The person told us that all staff always treated them with respect.

Through discussion with staff, the person who used the service and looking at records, we found that staff took account of their individual preferences and interests in planning daily routines.

Is the service responsive?

People's care needs were reviewed regularly which helped to ensure that people continued to receive care that was appropriate and effective. We saw that staff worked with people to increase their independence and monitored associated risks, responding appropriately to any changes.

Is the service well-led?

We found the service was well managed. The registered manager and staff were experienced and had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. We saw that people who used the service and staff were provided with formal and informal opportunities to give their views on the service. Quality assurance processes were in place and we saw that where the need for improvement was identified, these were acted on.

We observed interactions between people who used the service and the staff. We heard the staff speak politely to people and respected people's wishes and personal preferences.

We saw that regular quality monitoring checks were carried out on all aspects of the service. We also saw that people using the service, relatives and staff were regularly asked to provide feedback on the quality of service delivery. This meant that areas for improvement were identified and that appropriate action was taken to make any changes that were necessary.

We found the service to be well managed and that people received reliable, safe and effective care.