Archived: St Peter's Court

St Peter’s Court is registered to provide services for up to 24 older people. People living at St Peter's Court have a range of needs associated with dementia.

The service has a registered manager in place. 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 were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised and how to safeguard people from the possible risk of harm.

The provider had robust recruitment processes in place. There were sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and would seek people’s consent before they provided any care or support. Staff received supervision and support, and had been trained to meet people’s individual needs.

People were supported by caring and respectful staff who knew them well and were respected their dignity at all times. Staff were given the opportunity to get to know the people they supported.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual preferences, and choices. Staff supported people to maintain their health and well-being.

Feedback was encouraged from people and the manager acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service. The provider had effective quality monitoring processes in place to ensure that they were meeting the required standards of care but these did not cover all areas. There was a formal process for handling complaints and concerns which were investigated and resolved in a timely manner.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were protected by effective staff recruitment systems. Records showed that staff had received Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people's rights were protected should they lack the capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment.

We saw that the staff had talked with relatives and other professionals to make sure that care was only being provided in people's best interests and in accordance with (Section 4 Best Interests) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw that mental capacity assessments had been undertaken and were clearly documented in peoples care records.

Is the service effective?

The four people we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they received. No one raised any concerns with us. This was consistent with the positive feedback received from people as reported in the provider's own quality assurance survey. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about individual people's care needs, and this knowledge was consistent with the care plans in place.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We spoke with four people who used the service. People commented, “The staff help me, they don’t do everything for me and help me to do things for myself”. One person said to us, "I am very happy here.” We spoke with three relatives and one person told us we. "We looked at other homes but when we came here, we had such a lovely warm welcome." We observed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were appropriate, respectful and friendly and there was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the home.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that the five care plans and risk assessments we looked were informative, up to date and regularly reviewed. The registered manager responded in an open, thorough and timely manner to complaints. This meant that people could be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the home.

Is the service well led?

Staff said that they felt well supported by the manager, the team worked well together, and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff.

During our inspection we saw that people received good care. People told us that they liked living in the home. We saw that people were comfortable with staff and others living in the home and there was a relaxed atmosphere.

Processes were in place for people and/or their relatives to give consent to their care, treatment and support and we saw that this was recorded. People's needs were met in a person centred way and their care plan reflected their needs, wishes and personal preferences. One relative said: "I tried to care for my relative for a long time but have now accepted that they need more care than I could give. Signing the consent to their care meant that I was still involved in their life even if they didn't live at home anymore.'

Medicines were administered in a safe way and checks were in place which ensured staff continued to be competent in this role.

Staff were supported to undertake their role competently by having a system of regular supervision, training and annual appraisals in place. The manager had a quality assurance system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. One person told us: 'I like it here; the staff are nice and very helpful and help me sort things out.'