You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 November 2016

This comprehensive inspection took place on 29 September 2016. We gave notice three days beforehand to ensure the registered manager would be available. We last inspected the service in December 2013 and found that it was meeting the regulations.

Melton Court provides housekeeping services, which CQC does not regulate, to the owners of the flats there. Six of these owners also receive personal care in their flats, such as assistance with showering and bathing. We inspected this personal care service only.

The registered manager responsible for the personal care service had worked at Melton Court for a number of 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.

People were pleased with the service they received. They told us staff knew them well, had a good understanding of the care they needed and provided this effectively, in an unhurried manner. Comments included: “The whole place makes us feel safe”, “They are experienced, they really know what needs doing” and “We can’t sing its praises enough – everybody’s so caring”. People told us that staff arrived when expected and stayed for the right length of time.

Some people were assisted with prescribed medicines, including skin creams. There was a safe system for administering and recording medicines, including regular staff training, to ensure that people had their medicines as prescribed.

Staff had the right skills and knowledge to provide people’s care. Safe recruitment procedures ensured that people were supported by staff with the appropriate experience and character to work in a caring role with older people. The staff had worked in the service for several years. They had regular refresher training in key topics; this was mostly provided through distance learning. They were also supported through supervision meetings with a line manager, at which they discussed their work and any training needs they had.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being provided. Managers visited people regularly to discuss their experience of the service, as well as having informal ad hoc conversations with them. Staff had spot checks periodically, where managers observed them at work and checked they were following the correct procedures. There was also an annual quality assurance survey sent out to people who used the service. The feedback from the last survey in January 2016 had been positive. Where people had expressed any uncertainty about aspects of the service, such as how best to contact the office, this had been followed up. There had been no complaints about the service since our last inspection.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was safe.

People felt safe with the staff who provided their care.

People were supported by sufficient staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs.

People�s medicines were managed and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was effective.

People�s consent was obtained to their care and support.

People received care from staff who were supported through training and supervision.

People were supported to maintain their health.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was caring.

People praised the caring and respectful approach of the staff.

People had care from regular staff who knew them well.

People were provided with information about the service and were supported to express their views about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People received consistent, personalised care and their care needs were met.

Care plans were clear and were regularly reviewed, with people�s involvement.

The service had a policy and procedure for addressing complaints but there had been no complaints since the last inspection, as the management team worked with people to address any concerns as they arose.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was well led.

The service had a friendly, open, positive culture that promoted the importance of listening to people.

People spoke highly of the quality of the service provided. There was a quality assurance system that operated to ensure standards were maintained.