You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 November 2017

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 17 and 18 October 2017. Lord Harris Court is a care home with nursing which is registered to provide care for up to 90 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 85 people resident in the service on the days of the inspection visits. Some people who live in the home are self-funding (pay for their own care) whilst others have financial support from the local authority. This is the first inspection of the service which was registered in October 2016 when the provider changed.

The service did not have a registered manager, at the time of the inspection visits. The provider was actively recruiting to the post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 service provided staff with training to assist them to keep people, staff and visitors to the service as safe as possible. People were protected from all types of abuse and/or poor practice by staff who knew what action to take if they had any concerns about people’s safety or treatment. Health and safety policies and procedures were followed and ensured that as far as possible people who lived in, worked in or visited the service were safe. Any risks to safety were identified and managed to minimise them.

People were provided with staff who had been recruited through reliable recruitment processes which ensured that as far as possible they were suitable to provide safe care to people. However, there were a large number of temporary staff used. People were not confident with the care provided by some temporary staff specifically those who covered night shifts. Improvements were needed to the way night care was monitored. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. People were not always supported to take their medicines safely and whilst improvements had been made further improvement was needed in this area.

People were provided with effective care that respected their diversity, preferences and choices and met their needs. People were supported to make decisions and choices about their care. Staff upheld people’s legal and human rights with regard to decision making and choice.

People’s rights were protected by a management and staff team who understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005). This legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. People were supported to have maximum 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.

People’s needs were met by a caring staff team who worked together in the best interests of the people they offered care to. Staff built positive relationships with people and others who were important to them. People’s individuality and differences were recognised and respected and they were treated with kindness, respect and dignity at all times. Any special needs were taken into account and people were offered the appropriate care.

People were offered a variety of well organised and meaningful activities which enhanced their lifestyle. They were encouraged to enjoy and participate in them by specialised staff.

The service was well-led by an interim manager, in the absence of a registered manager. The management team were described as open, approachable and supportive by the majority of the staff. The service had a large number of ways to monitor and assess the quality of care they offered. Any shortfalls or improvements needed were identified and acted upon.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 21 November 2017

The service required improvement.

People did not always feel safe when temporary staff were offering them care without the presence of permanent staff. They felt particularly vulnerable at night.

Staff did not always help people to take their medicines safely and had made a large number of errors in the preceding 12 months.

People who used the service, visitors and staff were kept as safe as possible by robust policies and procedures and well trained and knowledgeable staff.

Staff were trained in and knew how to keep people safe from all types of abuse. They were confident in their ability to keep people safe.

Staff were recruited in a way which meant that the manager was as confident as he could be that the staff chosen were suitable and safe to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 November 2017

The service was effective.

People’s right to make their own decisions was encouraged and respected.

Staff were provided with training and supported by senior staff to ensure they were able to offer good quality care.

Staff met people’s needs effectively, in the way they preferred.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 November 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by a highly committed, kind, respectful and caring staff team

People’s needs were met by a staff team who treated people with respect and promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

The staff team understood the importance of positive and caring relationships between them, the people they cared for and their families.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People were offered individualised care in the way they preferred.

People’s needs were regularly assessed and support plans were changed as and when necessary. People were involved in the assessment and care planning processes.

People knew how to use the complaints procedure and were confident that complaints would be acted upon and resolved as quickly as possible.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 November 2017

Overall, staff felt they were well supported by the management team.

The provider, interim manager and staff team made sure that the quality of the care they offered was maintained and improved.

People, staff and others were listened to and their views were valued, respected and acted upon, as appropriate.