You are here

Scraptoft Court Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 August 2018

We carried out this inspection on 17 July 2018 unannounced and returned announced on 18 July 2018.

Scraptoft Court is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 43 people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection they had 26 people living at the service. Scraptoft Court is in a residential area of Leicester and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to people who may or may not have nursing care needs.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

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 treated with kindness and compassion. Care plans reflected people’s likes and dislikes, and staff spoke with people in a friendly manner. However, people’s dignity was compromised where staff did not ensure they wore their own clothes.

Staff had a good understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse and incidents of concern. Risk assessments were in place to manage potential risks within people’s lives, whilst also promoting their independence.

There were a suitable number of staff deployed and the provider had followed safe recruitment practices. People received their medicines in line with their prescription.

Staff induction training and on-going training was provided to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles. Specialist training was provided to make sure that people’s needs were met and they were supported effectively.

Staff supported by the registered manager and senior team, and had one to one supervisions. The staff we spoke with were all positive about the senior staff and management in place, and were happy with the support they received.

People mostly were asked for consent prior to care being provided. People were mostly supported to have choice and control of their lives. We have made a recommendation about involving people in decisions about their support.

People had enough to eat and drink to maintain good health and nutrition. People were supported to access health professionals when required.

Where possible the registered manager involved people in care planning. Families were involved in reviews and were kept up to date with changes in their loved one’s care needs.

A process was in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns. Concerns were acted upon promptly and lessons were learned through positive communication.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The providers and registered manager provided positive leadership to all staff.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken and improvements were made when required.

Inspection areas



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.

The provider operated safe recruitment procedures. Suitably skilled and knowledgeable staff were deployed to meet the needs of people that used the service.

The provider had safe protocols in place for managing and administrating people's medicines.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had access to an effective induction and training. Nurses and care staff were supported to maintain their skills and qualifications.

People were supported in accordance with relevant guidance and legislation. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff could support people to make choices around meal times more effectively.

People's nutritional and hydration needs were effectively met.

Staff supported people to have prompt access to healthcare



Requires improvement

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was not consistently caring.

Staff were not consistent when supporting people's dignity.

People were supported to remain as independent as possible.

Staff supported people in a kind and compassionate manner.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People's care plans reflected their individual needs. The care that

they received was suited to their needs.

People had access to a variety of activities of their choice.

Staff supported people with compassion when people were approaching the end of their life.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager and deputy manager were accessible to staff, relatives and people using the service.

Staff were supported by the registered manager.

There was an open culture within the service and the registered manager encouraged people, staff and relatives to share their views of the service.

The provider had procedures for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service. They used these to improve the quality of care they provided.

People had opportunities to give their feedback about the service. The registered manager acted on their feedback.