North Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

Maven Healthcare took over the running of North Court from the previous provider in January 2024. Under the previous provider we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider worked with people to identify their care and treatment needs. Whilst we saw some detailed and informative care plans there were some inconsistencies across the service which could impact on the support people receive.

Overall people were positive about the care they received. Staff appeared to know people well and understood their individual needs. One person told us, “I had a birthday last week. They organised a party for me (staff and friends). I have a wash in bed, I get one every day, I prefer this as don’t like showers. They try their best here.” Another person told us, “I wouldn’t want to go anywhere else…staff get me books to read, they give me a wash down…the staff are lovely. They make the place.”

Care plans had recently been upgraded with the introduction of a new electronic recording system. They were informative and contained person centred information to guide staff about the support people needed. However, our observations were that practice, and the care plan did not always align. Two people had bedrails where none were documented as having been agreed. Plans were not always consistently completed which placed people at risk of inconsistent care. For example, a number of people did not have oral health plans. It was not always clearly documented how often people should be repositioned and mobility plans did not document which loops staff should use when transferring people using a mobility sling.

The provider worked with other professionals and services to ensure continuity of care when people transitioned into the home.

Concerns have previously been expressed about how the service worked with other health partners and the impact on people. The provider and new manager were aware of the concerns and had set up new systems to strengthen communication and joint working. Partner agencies were positive about the changes made and hopeful they would lead to better outcomes for people.

People told us that they received support from a consistent team of staff. Relatives told us they were kept updated with their relatives changing health needs.

Staff were aware of people’s communication needs and the way they communicated was recorded in their care plans. We observed one member of staff reminding another about the use of white boards to use when communicating with one person.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us that they were consulted and able to raise concerns. One person told us, “We have meetings, and they often ask me how I feel about the place, what I need, they are pretty good on that.” Another said “We do have meetings, and they take about 20 minutes or so, about what is happening here. They ask if things are improving. The food has improved, now that we have got a new chef, they are lovely. We have got 2 new activity staff on every other weekend.”

A ‘you said we did’ form was on display and showing the actions taken following suggestions from people. People had asked for more fresh fruit and we saw that fruit platters were available on the drink’s trolleys and in the dining room.

Where complaints had been received records were maintained of the concerns and those raising the concerns were provided with an outcome and any subsequent actions and learning.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Health and social care professionals visited the service, and people were supported to access treatment locally when they needed it. The service was well integrated into the local community and people were supported to maintain key relationships.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were positive in their feedback about the support they received. There were systems in place to ascertain people’s views and hear peoples voice such as through the resident of the day, resident meetings and quality questionnaires.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People and their relatives were supported to discuss their wishes regarding end of life care and these were documented in their care records.

Some people had authorisations in place such as Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms in place which took into account each person’s individual circumstances and their preference for what action should be taken in an emergency.