We carried out a review of the data available to us about Nautilus Care 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 Nautilus Care, you can give feedback on this service.
The service is part of a range of housing and care services provided for former merchant seafarers and their families. Nautilus Care is a domiciliary service providing ‘personal care’ to people in their own homes and within an extra care setting known as The Hub. Within The Hub people have their own apartments and there is a café, laundry, gym, hairdressers and communal spaces for people to socialise. Staff were available 24 hours per day in the Hub. Not all people were in receipt of a regulated activity. At the time of the inspection, 14 people were receiving ‘personal care’ and all lived within The Hub.
People’s experience of using this service:
The provider and registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Overall these checks were effective and had identified areas for improvement that were being addressed.
People told us they received support that kept them safe. This support was provided by staff who had been safely recruited, who they knew well and who arrived when planned.
Medicines were administered by trained staff and people did not raise any concerns regarding their medicines.
People’s needs were assessed, and person-centred plans of care had been developed to meet their individual needs. People’s consent to their care and treatment was sought and recorded in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. They provided support that protected people’s dignity and privacy. Staff knew the people they supported well, including their needs and preferences and worked in ways that promoted their independence. People were given information and were supported to make decisions and their views regarding care was regularly sought.
The provider was responsive to people’s individual needs. People’s care plans were detailed and reflected people’s individual needs and preferences regarding care. People had been involved in regular reviews of their care to ensure it continued to meet their needs. There was a procedure in place to manage complaints and people knew how to raise any concerns they had.
The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and had notified CQC of incidents that had occurred within the service and displayed their previous rating as required. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team and enjoyed their jobs.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated good. (Last report published 18 November 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
The service had a registered manager who was supported by a care manager. 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.
People said they felt safe whilst being supported by the service. People told us that staff were caring and were responsive to their needs. We found that people were involved in the planning of their care and had an opportunity to say what was important to them. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of people`s individual needs and preferences.
Care plans were person centred and were written to reflect the support needs of people who used the service. Risks to people’s health, safety and well-being were identified and plans put in place to manage any risks.
The provider had robust and effective recruitment processes in place so that people were supported by staff of a suitable character. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff completed a programme of training and had individual supervision meetings with their line manager.
Where people needed support to take their prescribed medicines, medication agreements had been drawn up and agreed with them and administration records were completed.
People were given written information about the services available and about how to make a complaint. Systems were in place for checking on the quality of service provided. People were asked to give their views about the service and their comments were acted on. Service development plans were in place and had been shared with the people who lived at Mariners' Park.
The standard of record keeping required improvement to ensure that management information was current and readily available.