You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 June 2017

Webster Court is a Sheltered Housing Project offering personal care for people with a history of substance misuse. At the time of our visit, there were 24 tenants at Webster Court who were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post, who had been in post since the service commenced two years ago. 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.

The service was safe. Staff had assessed risks to individuals and mitigated them appropriately. Staff and people using the service were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew how to report any concerns they had. There were enough staff, and they were flexible to meet people’s needs. There were systems in place which ensured staff were recruited safely.

Staff supported people safely to take their medicines and the records were clear. Where needed, staff provided prompting and different levels of support for people to take their own medicines.

People received a high standard of care from trained staff who had an understanding of their specific needs. Staff felt supported at work. They sought consent before delivering care and were aware of individuals’ mental capacity to make decisions. Staff supported people to access healthcare services promptly when required.

Staff supported people to eat a choice of freshly made meals and a balanced diet, and referred people to specialist healthcare professionals if needed.

People were cared for by staff who knew them well and adapted their communication effectively with them, which empowered people to be involved in their care and make their own decisions. People were consulted about their care when planning and reviewing their needs. Staff supported some people to maintain a plan for consumption of alcohol, so that this could be managed safely. Staff promoted people’s independence, and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People received individualised care according to their own needs, and when they changed, staff responded appropriately and were flexible. People felt comfortable to talk with staff if they had any problems.

The staff worked well together as a team, with a positive, compassionate attitude, and good leadership was in place. There were systems in place to ensure that high quality care was delivered continuously and any potential problems would be identified in a timely manner.

Inspection areas



Updated 8 June 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew about safeguarding procedures. Risks to individuals were assessed and managed safely.

People received support with medicines safely if they required it.

There were enough staff to support people and they were recruited safely.



Updated 8 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received effective training and were competent in delivering care to people. The induction process was robust and staff received supervision and support.

Staff supported people with their meals and drinks when required, and to access healthcare.

Staff asked people for consent and were aware of their capacity to make decisions.



Updated 8 June 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were passionate about delivering a high standard of compassionate care to people, and went out of their way to provide this. They built trusting and supportive relationships with people and their families.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged independence where appropriate.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and their views were acted upon.



Updated 8 June 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff were flexible when people’s needs changed and responded effectively. They met people’s preferences when providing care.

There were clear plans for people’s care with guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs.

People and their families were confident to raise any concerns should they have any, and knew who to contact.



Updated 8 June 2017

The service was well-led.

There was good leadership in place. The registered manager was supportive to staff and there was high morale. The staff worked effectively as a team.

There were systems in place to assess, evaluate and improve the service.