You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 January 2018

This inspection took place on 22 and 23 November 2017. This was the first inspection since the legal entity responsible for providing the service had changed in October 2016.

Andrews Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home is in a converted church and accommodates up to 35 people on two floors. At the time of the inspection there were 31 people accommodated in the home.

The service was managed by a registered 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 were supported by staff who were highly caring and compassionate. Staff knew people and their backgrounds well and used this knowledge to communicate effectively with people to ensure their diverse needs were met. Staff told us the philosophy of the home was that people should be treated as valued individuals.

People were treated with the utmost respect at all times. Staff protected their privacy, involved them in decisions about their care and promoted their independence. People described a strength of the service was the way staff cared for relatives as well as the person who actually lived in Andrews Court. All the feedback we received and saw was extremely positive about the care provided by Andrews Court.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Recruitment procedures helped ensure only suitable staff were employed. Staff knew the correct action to take to protect people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe in Andrews Court.

We identified some improvements needed to be made to the way medicines were handled in the service, including the administration of prescribed creams. However, all of the people we spoke with told us they always received their medicines as prescribed. Before the end of the inspection, the registered manager had taken action to address all the shortfalls we identified.

People were cared for in a safe, clean environment. The signage and décor in the home helped to promote the independence of people living with a dementia.

Arrangements were in place to check that fire safety equipment was in working order. However, we found no fire drills had taken place since the service opened; this meant staff might not be aware of the correct action to take should the building need to be evacuated.

Appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLS) applications had been made to the local authority and people's mental capacity to make their own decisions had been assessed and recorded in line the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

A comprehensive assessment was completed by the registered manager before people moved in to Andrews Court. This assessment was used to formulate plans of care for each individual that were sufficiently detailed to ensure they were at the centre of their care. People’s care and support needs were kept under review and, where appropriate, they were involved in decisions about their care. Risks to people’s health and safety had been identified, assessed and managed safely. Relevant health and social care professionals provided advice and support when people’s needs changed.

Staff told us they received the support they required to deliver effective care. Staff had received training in a range of topics and were able to discuss their learnin

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

People told us they felt safe in Andrews Court and there were enough staff to provide them with the support they needed.

Some improvements needed to be made to the way medicines were handled in the service.

All areas of the home had a high standard of cleanliness.

Regular fire drills had not taken place; these are important to help to ensure staff understand the correct action to take if they need to evacuate the building.



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received the support required to enable them deliver effective care.

Appropriate action had been taken to safeguard the rights of people who were unable to consent to their care in the home. Staff understood their responsibility to support people to make their own choices and decisions wherever possible.

People were supported to access required health care services to ensure their needs were met.



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was caring.

Without exception people told us staff were consistently kind, caring and respectful.

All staff demonstrated a commitment to providing caring and compassionate support to people who used the service and their families. Respect for people as valued individuals with diverse needs was embedded in the culture of the service.

Staff understood how best to communicate with people to help ensure they were always able to express their views, wishes and preferences.



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Each person’s records contained individualised plans of care to ensure staff knew how to meet their needs, wishes and preferences.

People were supported to take part in in a range of social activities to promote their sense of well-being.

Systems were in place to respond to and investigate any complaints people raised about the care in Andrews Court.



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager demonstrated a drive for continuous improvement in the service.

Staff enjoyed working at Andrews Court and found the registered manager to be supportive and approachable.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.