• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Webster Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

13-49 Lakenfields, Norwich, Norfolk, NR1 2HB (01603) 699100

Provided and run by:
St Martins Housing Trust

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

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 6 February 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

Service and service type

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at the support people received with their care.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included notifications the provider had sent us about certain events that had occurred and any information and/or intelligence we had received from the public. We also sought feedback from the local authority regarding the service. This information was used to help us plan the inspection.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection

We spoke with five people who used the service about their experience of the care and support provided. We spoke with five members of staff including the provider, registered manager and support workers. We also spoke with a visiting healthcare professional.

We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records and three medication records. We also viewed two staff training and supervision files. A variety of records relating to the management of the service were also reviewed.

After the inspection

We received written feedback on the quality of care provided from one relative and one social care professional and spoke with a commissioner of the service.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 6 February 2020

About the service

Webster Court is an extra care housing complex providing personal care and support to people aged over 50 who have either experienced homelessness in the past or are at risk of becoming homeless. Not everyone who used 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. At the time of our inspection visit, 24 people were receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe using the service. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and they were supported to manage these. People received their medicines when they needed them and there were enough staff to provide support to people when they required this.

The provider was pro-active at identifying and acquiring specialist training for staff in subjects that reflected people’s individual needs and experiences. This ensured staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to support people effectively.

Staff strongly advocated for people and worked closely with other organisations and professionals to ensure people received support with their healthcare needs when they required this. Professionals were complimentary about how well the staff worked with them, telling us the service was highly thought of within the professional community.

People told us their consent had been sought before they received support. Staff had a good knowledge on how to support people in line with the relevant legislation. However, systems to ensure other individuals could legally consent on behalf of a person needed to be more robust. We have made a recommendation in this area.

Staff were kind and caring. They treated people with dignity and respect. The provider ensured staff had time to spend with people, so they could get to know them. Staff were respectful of treating people as individuals and as equals. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, and they were supported to become more independent to enhance their sense of wellbeing.

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. They had been fully involved in deciding what support they required when using the service. People received support in line with their individual needs, choices and preferences.

People’s wishes were sought regarding the end of their life and these were respected and fulfilled. The service had received external accreditation for the quality of care they provided to people at this time.

Good leadership was in place. The provider and registered manager promoted an open, person-centred culture where people and staff were treated with respect and were valued. Robust governance systems were in place to monitor the quality of care and support provided to people. The provider and registered manager demonstrated a commitment to continually improve the quality of support people received.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.