Archived: Conrad Court

Updated 12 September 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 20 and 23 June 2017. The provider was given 48 hours’ advance notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service within an extra care setting and we needed to ensure the registered manager and staff were available. This meant the provider and staff knew we would be visiting the service before we arrived. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about Conrad Court including notifications we had received. Notifications are information about important events the provider is required to tell us about by law. We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information in the planning of the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with six people, five staff and the registered manager. We reviewed 12 people’s care records, risk assessments and medicines administration records. We reviewed seven staff files which included pre-employment checks, training records and supervision notes and the minutes of four team meetings. We reviewed the service’s fire safety records including records of fire alarm tests, building evacuation drills and the visual inspection of smoke detectors and fire equipment. We read the provider’s quality assurance information, including audits, and looked at complaints and compliments from people and their relatives.

Following the inspection we contacted seven health and social care professionals to gather their views about the service people were receiving.

Updated 12 September 2017

Conrad Court provides personal care for people living in self-contained flats. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 42 older people, people with mental health needs and people with a learning disability.

At our last inspection in May 2015 the service was rated as 'Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained rated as ‘Good’.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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 remained safe. Staff continued to protect people from abuse and managed identified risks . There were staff in sufficient numbers to keep people safe and they had been recruited by the provider using robust procedures to ensure they were appropriate to deliver care.

People continued to be supported by trained and supervised staff. People were treated in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to eat healthily and to access the services of health and social care professionals whenever they needed to.

People told us the staff continued to be caring and treated them with respect. People were supported to maintain relationships and their independence. Staff respected people’s privacy and provided people with information about the service.

People continued to receive a service that was responsive to their assessed and changing needs. People were supported to remain active and to avoid social isolation. The provider gathered people’s views to improve the service and responded promptly and appropriately to people’s complaints.

The service continued to be well led. People and staff thought the registered manager was approachable and open. The service had robust quality assurance processes in place and the provider worked collaboratively with others to achieve positive outcomes for people.