We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lester Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Lester Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Lester Court provides accommodation and support for up to 10 younger adults with mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were six people using the service.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe at the service and able to speak out. A person said, "Everyone has a voice here, everyone has come out of their shell.”
The service had an established staff team meaning people had continuity of care. Staff were safely recruited and well-trained. They were caring and kind and had positive relationships with the people using the service.
People were encouraged to become more independent, try new activities, and make use of the local community. Staff knew where people were at risk and supported them to remain safe. They listened to people and encouraged them to make positive lifestyle choices.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service was well-led by an experienced registered manager and deputy. People and staff had confidence in their ability to run the service to a good standard taking into account the views of those who lived and worked there.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (report published 29 December 2018).
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received around safeguarding, leadership and governance. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service is Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Lester Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Lester Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
At our last inspection on 17 November 2015 we rated the service ‘Good’ overall and in all domains. At this inspection and from our ongoing monitoring there was no evidence or information that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
.
People continued to receive a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. Staff understood the challenges people might face and how to support them with these. The home was well-staffed and people said this made them feel safe. People received their medicines when they needed them. The home was clean and fresh throughout.
People continued to receive an effective service. People were assessed before they came to the home to ensure staff could meet their needs. Staff were well-trained, skilled and knowledgeable and understood the importance of providing an effective and non-discriminatory service. Staff supported people to eat and drink enough. People had access to the healthcare services they needed. The premises were designed to support people to live independently. People were supported, in the least restrictive way possible, to have maximum choice and control of their lives.
People continued to receive a caring service. Staff had mutually-respectful relationships of trust with people. People were involved in the provider’s ‘Big Wish’ project where they had the opportunity to make a wish which staff supported them to achieve. People told us they enjoyed taking part in the project and it made them feel valued. People were supported to express their views and were actively involved in making decisions about their care and support.
People continued to receive a responsive service. The home used the ‘recovery star model’ to support people to progress towards independence. People were engaged in their recovery through personalised reviews. People had access to the information they needed in a way they could understand it, for example face-to-face, in writing, and/or pictorially. People had the opportunity to take part in a range of activities including college, shopping, playing pool, and sport.
People continued to receive a well-led service People and staff made many positive comments about the quality of the accommodation, care and support. The registered manager was well-liked and respected. People and staff had the opportunity to share their views on the service. The registered manager and provider carried out regular quality audits to ensure the home was running well and made improvements where necessary.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We inspected the service on 17 November and the visit was unannounced.
Lester Court provides accommodation for up to eight adults with mental health difficulties. At the time of our inspection, six people were living at the service.
The service is required to have 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. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.
People felt safe at the service. They knew how to raise a concern and staff knew about their safeguarding responsibilities. Risks had been assessed and people using the service were involved where possible.
The provider was monitoring health and safety and learning from incidents that had occurred. There was not a comprehensive plan of what to do in emergencies. The registered manager acted upon this when we visited.
People were supported by staff who had been through a thorough recruitment process and staffing levels were suitable to support people using the service. People received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor. We found effective systems for managing medicines but the temperature of the room they was stored in was not being monitored so there was a risk that medicines stored there would not be as effective as they should.
Staff received regular training that was devised to ensure that they could respond effectively to people’s needs as they changed. The manager had highlighted further training following an incident. Staff were effective in offering their support in a person-centred way and were able to adapt their style of communication where needed. We found staff to be caring.
Staff were receiving regular support from their manager including formal supervision. Staff and relatives described the registered manager as approachable. The registered manager knew their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and they had followed the required processes appropriately. We found that people using the service and relatives were involved in reviewing the care and support received.
Some people had their own kitchenette which enabled independence in the preparation of food. Relatives described the food positively. Staff were described as good. We found interactions between staff and people using the service to be positive. Care was focused on things that were important to people and this had been documented. People were listened to and action was taken by staff to make changes where requested. There were action plans in place to support people to achieve greater independence and develop skills. We found that privacy and dignity were understood by staff and arrangements were in place to embed these values in practice.
People using the service and relatives were involved in the planning of care being provided. People chose to take part in activities and leisure interests that were important to them and we found there were enough staff to support this.
The service had received complaints which had been addressed with outcomes recorded. Relatives knew how to complain and felt they were able to if necessary. When a person using the service had complained, this had been addressed to their satisfaction.
Ideas for improving the service were taken on board by the provider. Relatives told us they were confident to discuss suggestions with the management. There was no formal system in place for capturing the views and experiences of relatives or others coming into contact with the service. The registered manager and senior managers conducted regular audits. These highlighted areas for improvement and we saw that they had taken action where required.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities and accountabilities and had put in place systems to make sure communication was effective, such as staff meetings.