You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at The Court. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

This inspection took place on 3 October 2017 and was unannounced.

The 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.

This inspection was the first for this newly named service with its new provider. The home required and had, 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.

The registered manager (who was also the new provider) of this service had been the manager of the previous service and many of the staff still worked for the home. This meant they had been able to provide continuity of care for the people who lived in the home.

The Court is a large detached period house situated in a quiet suburban area in Hoylake. It is close to local shops and near to local public transport. It provides residential accommodation for up to 17 people with personal care needs and at the time of our inspection, there were 17 people living there. The home had further accommodation which they were hoping to make into an additional bedroom and had applied to CQC to increase the numbers they could accommodate.

The home has 12 large single bedrooms and three double bedrooms, most with en-suite facilities. It is arranged over three floors with passenger lift access. The home has been re-furbished by the new provider and the accommodation is light, clean and has a homely feel to it. Most people had personalised their own rooms and these had been decorated to their choice.

The provider had employed additional staff. The home was clean and tidy with no unpleasant odours. The buildings maintenance was done by a team of tradespeople which the provider had immediate access to if urgent work was needed.

The required safety checks for services such as gas and electrical installations and the lift and fire equipment had all been carried out in a timely manner. However; some improvements suggested had been not been recorded as being completed, although most had been done. The kitchen had a food hygiene rating of five, which is the highest attainable and a variety of food was prepared and served according to people’s needs and preferences.

Staff said they were well supported and trained. We noted that records to show that safe recruitment practices had been followed were incomplete, but we were assured that the previous provider’s administrator had the evidence that they had. They provided this in a later email. Medication was generally correctly stored and administered and staff were trained to administer medication.

Staff were supervised on a regular basis and their yearly appraisal had been scheduled for October 2017.

The provider followed the Mental Capacity Act and its associated deprivation of liberties safeguards (DoLS). There were eight people living at The Court who were the subject of a DoLS.

Care plans were completed and regularly reviewed. They were, in general, person centred and contained risk assessments which had identified any risks to people’s safety and well-being.

People were able to participate in a wide variety of activities and their cultural and religious needs and preferences were respected and enabled.

The management of the home had made changes to the way some aspects of the service had been run under the previous provider. There were still some improvements to make but there was a good rapport and understanding between staff and the managers. People living in the home and their visitors and relatives, told us they appreciated the improvements.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was safe.

Medication was safely recorded, stored and administered.

Staff had been recruited safely. Recruitment, disciplinary and other employment policies were in place.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place. Staff knew who to tell about a safeguarding concern.

The home was clean, comfortable and well maintained.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was effective.

All staff had received training and had been provided with an on-going training plan. Staff received good support, with supervision and annual appraisals taking place.

All the people we spoke with said they enjoyed their meals and had plenty to eat. The menu was varied and alternative food choices were always available

The home was decorated to meet the needs and preferences of the people living there.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was caring.

People told us that their dignity and privacy were respected when staff supported them.

The people we spoke with praised the staff. They said staff were very caring and helpful.

We saw that staff respected people’s privacy and were aware of how to protect people’s confidentiality. People were able to see personal and professional visitors in private.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person centred and reviewed regularly and provided sufficient guidance to enable staff to support people.

The complaints procedure at the home was available. People told us that staff listened to any concerns they raised, these had been followed up and information fed back to the person.

The provider worked with external professionals to make sure they responded appropriately to people’s changing needs.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager/provider was open and transparent. People and staff confirmed this.

There were systems in place to assess the quality of the service provided at the home. People who lived at the home, their relatives and staff were asked about the quality of the service provided.

Staff were supported by the registered manager and deputy manager.