Archived: Patrick Court

Updated 3 February 2023

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 Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by 1 inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service provides care and support to people living in 7 supported living settings so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

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

Inspection activity started on 5 January 2023 and ended on 6 January 2023. We visited the location’s service on 5 January 2023.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We visited 1 person in their home and had a telephone discussion with their relative to gain their view of the service.

We spoke with 4 staff members that included the registered manager, two assistant managers and the contract manager. We sought feedback via email from 20 staff members and received 3 responses.

We reviewed a range of records. This included 2 people's care records and medication records. We looked at 3 staff files in relation to recruitment. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including quality assurance audits, training records, key policies and meeting minutes were reviewed.

Updated 3 February 2023

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

Patrick Court is a supported living service that can accommodate 7 people living in their own homes on one site. 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. There were 2 people receiving personal care at the time of our inspection.

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

Right Support

There was enough staff to meet people's needs, however there was a reliance on the use of agency staff which meant that people did not always receive their care from staff that knew them well.

People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives. Staff enabled and encouraged people to take part in activities, which they enjoyed doing and helped them to experience new recreational activities. People were encouraged to develop new skills and have active and fulfilling lives.

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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Periods of anxiety or emotional distress were recorded, which included the action taken by staff to support people. The registered manager considered these as part of the review process of people's needs.

Right Care:

Care plans had not always been updated to reflect peoples current needs, however staff were aware of the support people required to meet their needs.

Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and potential harm. The service worked with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

Staff supported people to access health and social care support, which included a regular review of their prescribed medicines. Staff supported people with their medicines safely. Positive relationships had developed with local health care providers, who provided timely support, considering people’s emotional and sensory needs for planned appointments.

Right Culture:

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and standards of the service, however these had not always been effective at identifying areas for improvement.

Peoples care was regularly reviewed to ensure the care provided met their current needs. People’s dignity and human rights were promoted, and people were encouraged to make decisions about their day to day routines.

Staff felt well supported and said communication was effective and the management team were visible and always available to discuss any concerns. However, a relative told us that they did not feel management were responsive and did not always address concerns raised.

Staff were safely recruited. All staff received an induction and ongoing training to ensure they could meet people’s needs. Staff received training and information relation to the management and best practice guidance for infection prevention and control.

The staff worked well with external agencies and health and social care professionals, in supporting people with their ongoing care and support needs.

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 Requires Improvement published 04 April 2020.

Why we inspected

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 13 February 2020. A breach of legal requirements was found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve safe care and treatment.

We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Responsive and Well-led.

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 changed from Requires Improvement to Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Patrick Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.