We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ruckland 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 Ruckland Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Ruckland Court is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 50 older people who may live with dementia or other mental and physical health conditions. At the time of the inspection there were 44 people residing in the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were cared for by staff who understood how to keep them safe and had been trained to do so. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly and as people’s needs changed. Measures were in place to mitigate identified risks.
There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs and wishes. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure staff were suitable to work with people who lived at Ruckland Court.
People were supported appropriately with their medicines and good infection control practices were in place.
People spoke highly of the registered manager and staff team, commenting on their kind and supportive approach. Their views were sought, and they were involved in how the home was run.
A quality monitoring system was in place to ensure any shortfalls were identified and addressed in a timely way and the home continued to develop and improve people’s care.
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 (published 29 October 2018).
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about leadership within the home and people’s safety. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
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.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. The registered manager had recently been appointed as area manager and was in the process of inducting a new manager. The new manager will be referred to in the report as ‘manager’. They were working at the home on the day of our inspection and planned to register with CQC. 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 had previously been rated as ‘requires improvement’. At this inspection the service was rated as ‘good’. The service had addressed the issues raised at previous inspections and arrangements were in place to deliver safe care and improve quality.
There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. The environment was clean. There were arrangements to prevent and control infections.
Guidance was in place to ensure people received their medicines when required. Medicines were administered safely.
Where people were unable to make decisions arrangements were in place to ensure decisions were made in people's best interests. Best interests decisions were specific to the decisions which were needed to be made.
A system was in place to carry out suitable quality checks and appropriate checks had been regularly carried out. The provider had ensured that there was enough staff on duty. In addition, people told us that they received person-centred care. Sufficient background checks had been completed before new staff had been appointed according to the provider’s policy.
Staff had been supported to deliver care in line with current best practice guidance. Arrangements were in place to ensure staff received training to provide care appropriately and effectively. People were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People had access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support.
People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. People had access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.
Information was provided to people in an accessible manner. People had been supported to access a range of activities. People were supported to access local community facilities. The registered manager recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care. Arrangements were in place to support people at the end of their life.
The registered manager promoted a positive culture in the service that was focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. They had also taken steps to enable the service to meet regulatory requirements. Staff had been helped to understand their responsibilities to develop good team work and to speak out if they had any concerns. People, their relatives and members of staff had been regularly consulted about making improvements in the service. There were arrangements for working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Ruckland Court can provide accommodation and personal care for 50 older people and people who live with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 40 people living in the service.
The service was run by a company who was the registered provider. There was no registered manager in post. The former registered manager had left the company’s employment in February 2017 and the new manager was not due to take up their post until 29 April 2017. In the interim, the service was being managed by two deputy managers and one of the company’s operations managers. 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.
Some of the arrangements used to avoid preventable accidents and to manage medicines needed to be strengthened. There were not always enough staff on duty and some background checks on new staff had not been correctly completed. Staff knew how to respond to any concerns that might arise so that people were kept safe from abuse.
The registered provider had not always sought consent from people and their representatives about some of the care that was provided. This was necessary to ensure that decisions were always made in people’s best interests.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect people when they are not able to make decisions for themselves and it is necessary to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe. In relation to this, the registered provider had ensured that people only received lawful care.
Although some staff had not received all of the training they needed, they knew how to care for people in the right way.
People enjoyed their meals and were assisted to eat and drink enough. Staff ensured that people received all of the healthcare they needed.
People were treated with kindness and their right to privacy was respected. Confidential information was kept private.
People had been consulted about the help they wanted to receive and they had been given all of the practical assistance they needed. Care staff promoted positive outcomes for people who lived with dementia and people had been supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. Complaints had been quickly and fairly resolved.
Quality checks had not always effectively resolved problems in the running of the service. People had been consulted about the development of their home and the service was run in an open and inclusive way. Good team work was promoted and staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns. People had benefited from staff acting upon good practice guidance.