Archived: Burger Court

Before this visit we had received information about people's care and support not being properly planned, safeguarding procedures not being followed, staff not being properly trained and no accurate statement of purpose. We looked at these issues during our visit and found no evidence to support this information.

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

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant people would be safeguarded as required.

The manager organised the staff rotas and took people's care and support needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Staff we spoke with knew about people's care and support needs and their individual preferences.

People's preferences, interest and needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People discussed how they wished to spend their time though the care planning process. People were involved in planning how they wished to spend their time both inside and outside of the home. Support was then provided to enable people to pursue their interests.

Staffing numbers were increased as the need arose, to make sure people received the support they needed.

Is the service well-led?

In this report, the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

A manager was in post and was in the process of making an application to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager at the home. There was a statement of purpose in place which gave information about the service being provided and what people could expect from that service.

The service had only been in operation, in its current form, for a short period of time. We saw a range of audit tools were in place so the effectiveness of the service could be monitored.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw that people's needs had been assessed and plans had been devised to ensure people's needs were met. One person who used the service told us: 'The care here is great. You can't fault the staff at all.' Another person said: 'They look after me well and we have a laugh.'

People who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. We checked records relating to the maintenance of the building. The provider carried out regular audits of the premises to ensure that they remained in good condition and fit for purpose.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.