We carried out a review of the data available to us about Shaftesbury Court Residential Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Shaftesbury Court Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ Appropriate measures were in place to ensure that people could receive visitors safely at the service. A pre-book visiting system was in place in a designated area [visiting room]. Visiting was limited to one visitor per person and the visiting time was spaced to disinfect surfaces in between visits. All visitors were screened for any symptoms of acute respiratory infection before they could enter the service and they were supported to sanitise their hands and wear a face mask. We observed that social distancing rules were maintained during visits.
¿ Appropriate procedures were in place to ensure people were admitted safely into the service. A covid-19 test had to be carried out before and after each person was admitted and people were required to isolate for 14 days in their own flats. There were clear procedures from the point of entry to people’s flats that minimise risk of transmission. Regular assessments and temperature checks were carried out with people for any signs of acute respiratory infection.
¿ Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was available to staff. Staff had access to masks, aprons and gloves. There was a designated area for donning and doffing (putting on and taking off) PPE and there was sufficient stock of PPE. Where required, residents and visitor were provided with masks to minimise the risk of infection.
¿ The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to test people and staff for coronavirus and was following government guidance on testing.
¿ All staff had completed infection prevention and control training and a coronavirus training which included donning and doffing and the safe disposal of PPE.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ People and their relatives were complimentary about the service and said the service was well-managed.
¿ People told us they felt safe living at the home and their needs were being met.
¿ Assessments were carried out to ensure individual needs could be met. Where risks were identified, management plans were in place to mitigate risks safely.
¿ Appropriate numbers of suitably skilled staff were available to support people’s needs.
¿ People’s medicines were managed safely.
¿ Staff followed appropriate infection control practices to prevent or minimise the spread of infections
¿ 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.
¿ Staff were supported in their role and had completed appropriate training required to perform their role effectively.
¿ People were supported to eat healthy food in the right amount for their wellbeing.
¿ People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services.
¿ The design, decoration and adaptation of the home was suitable and met people’s needs.
¿ People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate towards them.
¿ People’s privacy and dignity was respected, and their independence promoted.
¿ People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support needs and the running of the service.
¿ People were provided information about the home in formats that met their needs to ensure they knew of the standard of care to expect.
¿ Staff understood people’s diversities and supported them in a caring way.
¿ People were supported to participate in activities that interest them and to maintain relationship with those important in their lives.
¿ People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.
¿ The home had an effective system for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service and was continuously learning to improve.
¿ The home worked in partnership with key agencies to plan and deliver an effective service.
Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 10 November 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. We found the service continues to meet the characteristics of Good in all areas.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Shaftesbury Court is a residential home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 39 people. Individual accommodation is in separate flats or bedsitting rooms. At the time of the inspection there were 26 people using the service.
There was an established registered manager in place who had been registered manager at the home for several years. 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.
At this inspection we found people and their relatives told us they felt safe at the service. Staff understood signs of abuse or neglect and knew how to report concerns. Individual risks to people were identified and monitored.
There were processes in place to manage emergencies. The premises and equipment, including emergency equipment, was routinely checked and maintained. Recruitment checks were in place before staff started work to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff being employed. Medicines were safely managed. There were enough suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs.
Staff received regular supervision, appraisal and suitable training across a range of areas and told us they felt supported to enable them to carry out their roles. Consent was sought before care was provided and staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People had plenty to eat and drink. People at risk of malnutrition or dehydration were monitored and their weight checked regularly. The home worked with a wide range of health and social care professionals to meet people’s health needs.
People and their relatives told us staff were very caring, kind and gentle. We observed enthusiastic staff focussed on providing personalised care in a calm and dignified way. Professionals commented on the caring ethos and staff told us they enjoyed their work.
People’s needs were assessed to ensure they could be safely met. Care and support for people was planned to meet their individualised needs. There was a regular activities programme to provide stimulation and social interaction.
People, their relatives and staff all told us they thought the service was well managed. The views of people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals were sought and used to make improvements. Complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s policy. People knew how and where to complain if they had a problem. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and issues identified were acted on.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service Safe?
We saw evidence to show that people had been involved in setting up their individual care plans so that support was always planned and delivered in a way which suited them. There were risk assessments in place for people's healthcare needs and for maintaining their safety both within the service and when they went out. Staff had received training to help them recognise and report abuse and were aware of the procedures to be followed should they have any concerns. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At the time of this inspection there was no one using the service that had been judged as lacking mental capacity. The registered manager was aware of her responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and DoLS.
Is the service Effective?
Care plans contained detailed information to help staff understand about people's needs and how support should be provided. People who used the service were regularly asked for their views about the care and support they were receiving. We saw that care plans were reviewed accordingly to reflect any changes that were needed.
Is the service Caring?
All of the feedback that we received from people about the care and support they received was very positive. They told us that staff were very kind and helped them in the way that they preferred. Comments we received included 'Staff are very kind', and 'Very helpful' and 'They're always polite, knock on the door before they come in and call out to let you know they're there".
Is the service Responsive?
Staff responded to people's needs. People's care plans and risk assessments were updated with any changes in their situation. Health professionals were contacted if a need was identified.
Is the service Well Led?
The service had a registered manager in place and people told us they were very approachable. Staff we spoke with felt supported. People using the service had been given information about how to raise a concern should they need to.
We found that people were asked to consent to their care and that their wishes were respected, although the provider did not always act in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent. There were not always enough staff available on the night shift to meet people's needs and the provider had not taken adequate steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening through regular staff training. People's care plans did not always reflect the care provided and care had not always been planned to ensure people's safety and welfare. Records relating to people's care were accurate and fit for purpose and records could be located promptly when required.
The staff group assisted people according to their needs. We saw that there is now a mix of need in the home from the people who use the service. The staff who we spoke to have adapted well to the changes and the demands placed upon them. We noted that other professionals were supportive of the work done by the staff. We pointed out and discussed with the senior staff the importance of training, safeguarding and quality monitoring.