Care Quality Services Potter’s Court

Updated 24 November 2025

Date of Assessment: 25 November to 8 December 2025. This was our first assessment of this service under their new legal entity and included all 5 key questions triggered by our ongoing monitoring of the service. The service provides personal care services for people living in self-contained flats in an extra care housing scheme. Not everyone who lived in the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. The service provides support including for people living with dementia, physical disability, sensory impairment, mental health conditions, and older and younger adults. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people using the service in receipt of support with their personal care.

At the time of the assessment the service was used by autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the service is not registered as a specialist service. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. People were supported in accordance with this guidance.

There was a positive learning culture, where the provider was proactive in seeking feedback and implementing learning to make improvements. People and their relatives knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. People were protected and kept safe from abuse. Staff were happy to raise any safety concerns and felt they would be dealt with properly. There were enough staff in place. Staff were recruited safely. People were consulted around how they wished their care to be carried out. Staff understood and managed risks related to people’s care. Safe systems were in place to ensure medicines were administered appropriately where required by competent staff. Staff worked with stakeholders involved in people’s care to promote the best outcomes and safe transitions when people moved between services. The provider made sure staff received mandatory training and was exploring further training to upskill staff in relation to specific medical conditions. Staff cared for people with dignity and respect and promoted their independence. People were treated with kindness and compassion and had a good level of consistency in care staff.
Leaders were visible and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. There was a registered manager in place at the time of the inspection. Staff felt able to give feedback and were treated equally. Effective audits were in place giving oversight of quality. The provider worked with professionals in the local community to deliver the best possible care.
The provider used technology as part of their vision on improvement. This included the use of artificial intelligence and automated risk mitigation. This was overseen by management to monitor for accuracy, privacy and confidentiality.
 

Updated 24 November 2025

We spoke with 10 people, and 6 relatives of people who used the service to gain feedback about their experience of receiving care from the provider.
People and relatives we spoke with were positive about staff, telling us they were happy and felt safe receiving care. Comments included, “Yes, they (staff) are brilliant, and they make me feel safe,” and “I feel totally safe with my carers (staff) and I have no complaints at all.”
We were also told people received regular staff. People told us staff were effective, well trained and efficient, although some of the new staff needed a bit more experience to be as proactive as regular staff.
Feedback on timing of calls was good, with people telling us they were happy with their staff who they felt were good and consistently arrived on time. One person said, “They (staff) arrive on time and stay as long as they should.”
People and relatives did not raise concerns about their medicines. They told us staff knew people’s needs well, and they had worked with the provider to give a lot of information at the start of their care package. This included preparing their own detailed care plans. One relative told us, “I was involved with setting up [relative’s] care plan and [the manager] adjusts it as necessary and according to how his [condition] has changed.”
People and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate when delivering care. Comments included, “They (staff) are so kind and attentive to [relative] and never rush [relative] at all”, “The carers (staff) that come here seem very good and they treat us in a respectful way and are caring towards us both”, and “They (staff) are all caring people.”
People and relatives told us they knew staff and leaders well, although it was difficult to get them on the phone at times. The registered manager told us they would check people and relatives had the correct telephone numbers to address this. People and relatives also told us they thought the service was well run and they would recommend them.