We carried out a review of the data available to us about Crompton 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 Crompton Court, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe living at the home. Feedback included “Absolutely wonderful”. There were enough staff to ensure people were kept safe, and call bells were answered in a timely manner. Staff were recruited and selected safely, and medicines were appropriately managed. Incidents and accidents were recorded and analysed for patterns and trends. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed and reviewed. Staff could clearly describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused. Safety checks on the environment were in place and robust.
The registered manager welcomed feedback and was responsive. All notifications had been sent to CQC, and the registered manager understood what was expected of them. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home, and they felt they could approach the registered manager to help them develop further in their roles or if they had any concerns. The registered manager was well known. Staff told us the registered manager led by example and was always on hand to offer support.
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 the service was good (Published 18 December 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
This inspection was a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Crompton Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Crompton Court Care Home is a residential ‘care home’ which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 34 older people, including people living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 31 people living at the home.
Rooms were located over two floors and there was an accessible lift available to use. There was a lounge area/dining room located on each floor as well as ‘summer room’ and ‘smoking room’ for people to access. All rooms were single occupancy and had en-suite facilities.
At the last inspection, which took place in April 2016 the service was rated ‘Good’.
At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and continued to meet all the essential standards that we assessed.
There was a registered manager at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is person who has registered with the CQC 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 registered manager was aware of their regulatory responsibilities and notified CQC of all events and incidents which occurred at the service. This enabled CQC to monitor the safety and welfare of people living at the home.
People who lived at Crompton Court told us they felt safe. We checked care plans and risk assessments and found that they contained up-to-date, relevant and consistent information.
Medication systems and processes were safely in place. Staff received appropriate medication training and regularly had their competency assessed.
The home employed an adequate number of staff to provide the support people required. We received positive feedback about the staffing levels from people, relatives and healthcare professionals during the inspection.
Recruitment was safely managed. Pre-employment checks were carried out; candidates were appropriately vetted before commencing employment.
Safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures were in place. Staff explained their understanding of what ‘safeguarding’ and 'whistleblowing' meant and the actions they would take to safeguard people in their care.
The environment was clean, odour-free and well-maintained. Dedicated domestic staff ensured that health, safety and infection control procedures were followed.
The home complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s level of capacity was appropriately assessed and reviewed.
Staff received regular supervision and were supported with training, learning and development opportunities.
People’s nutrition and hydration support needs were assessed and supported from the outset. We saw the appropriate support measures in place to ensure people’s nutrition and hydration needs were regularly monitored and reviewed.
People received an effective level of support from the staff team and external healthcare professionals. Appropriate referrals were made to district nurses, community matrons, speech and language therapists (SALT) and falls prevention teams.
We observed staff providing warm, kind and compassionate care. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect and felt safe and cared for.
People were encouraged to engage in a variety of different activities. There was an activities co-ordinator in post who arranged activities around different likes and preferences of people who lived at Crompton Court.
There was a formal complaints policy in place. People and relatives were provided with the complaint process information from the outset.
There was a variety of different audits and checks conducted which meant that people remained safe and were not exposed to risk.
The registered provider had a range of different policies in place. Staff knew where to access such policies and understood the importance of complying with these.
Situated in North Liverpool and located close to public transport links, leisure and shopping facilities, Crompton Court is registered to provide accommodation for up to 34 people with personal care needs. The location is a two storey property with a passenger lift between the floors. It has a small specialist unit that provides care for people living with dementia. Each bedroom has its own en-suite facilities.
A registered manager was in post. 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 were kept safe because staff were vigilant in monitoring behaviours and indicators of abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding and were able to explain what they would do if they suspected that someone was being mistreated. People living at the home had detailed care plans which included an assessment of risk. These were subject to regular review and contained sufficient detail to inform staff of risk factors and appropriate responses.
People’s safety was also promoted because the home had produced a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for each person living at the home and had conducted regular fire drills and fire alarm testing.
Staffing numbers were adequate to meet the needs of people living at the home. The provider based staffing allocation on the completion of a dependency tool.
The home recruited staff following a robust procedure. Staff files contained two references which were obtained and verified for each person. There were Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) numbers and proof of identification and address on each file.
People’s medication was stored and administered in accordance with good practice. We spot-checked medicines administration records and stock levels. We saw that records were complete and that stock levels were accurate.
Staff were suitably trained and skilled to meet the needs of people living at the home. The staff we spoke with confirmed that they felt equipped for their role.
The records that we saw showed that the home was operating in accordance with the principles of the MCA. Capacity assessments were decision specific and were focused on the needs of each individual.
People spoke positively about the quality of food. The menu changed every four weeks and clearly identified choices. People told us that they were offered plenty of drinks throughout the day.
People had good access to community healthcare services. The home worked well with healthcare professionals to maintain people’s wellbeing. We saw evidence of positive relationships and good communication with healthcare services.
Throughout the inspection we saw staff engaging with people in a positive and caring manner. Staff spoke to people in a respectful way and used language, pace and tone that was appropriate to the individual.
Staff spoke with people before providing care to explain what they were doing and asked their permission. People’s privacy and dignity were respected throughout the inspection. People living at the home had access to their own room with en-suite facilities for the provision of personal care if required.
Each of the people that we spoke with confirmed that they had been involved in their own care planning. They also confirmed that relatives were invited to contribute to care planning. We saw evidence in care records that people and their relatives had been involved in the review of care.
Information regarding compliments and complaints was clearly displayed and the provider showed us evidence of addressing complaints in a systematic manner. All of the people that we spoke with said that they knew what to do if they wanted to make a complaint.
The home had systems and processes in place for communicating with people who lived at the home and their relatives.
People living at the home spoke very positively about the quality of the care provided and the management of the home.
Each of the staff that we spoke with was able to explain the purpose of the home and its values. We saw that these values were reflected in the provision of care and in information displayed throughout the building.
The provider had systems in place to monitor safety and quality and to drive improvements. They completed a monthly audit which included information that was fed-back to the staff team.