You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 1 May 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Weavers Court provides care and support to people living in an ‘extra care’ housing scheme. At the time of our comprehensive inspection of 1 May 2019, there were 43 people in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to maintain choice, control and involvement in their care and daily routine.

Care plans indicated people’s individual preferences.

People were supported with their medicines where needed. There had been some medicine administration errors over the past year, however staff were being supported to address this through increased training and competency assessments.

Staff were kind, caring and promoted people’s dignity.

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.

The registered manager provided staff with leadership and was visible and supportive. Staff were motivated and enjoyed working at the service.

Information from audits, incidents and quality checks was used to drive continuous improvements to the service people received.

Rating at last inspection: The service was rated ‘Good’ at our last inspection on 7 and 10 October 2016. The report following that inspection was published on 3 November 2016.

Why we inspected: This inspection took place as part of our planned programme of comprehensive inspections.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service according to our inspection schedule.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection carried out on 7 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Inspection visits to Weavers Court took place on 7 and 10 October 2016. The first of these visits was unannounced.

Weavers Court provides personal care to people living in their own flats on the same site. At the time of our visits, 41 people were residing in their own tenancies, the majority of whom required some support. The support available varied from assistance with washing, dressing, mobility, eating and maintaining continence, to prompting and support with managing medicines or occasional additional help if people were unwell.

There was a registered manager in post, who completed registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in November 2015. A registered manager is a 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 and provider’s representatives had identified that improvements were needed to the safety of the service to promote better management of medicines. They had introduced increased monitoring and were arranging for additional training and support to help drive improvement in this area.

Other aspects of the safety of the service were managed well. Staff were clear about their obligations to report any concerns possible harm or abuse and people felt safe from harm or abuse by staff. Risks to people's safety were assessed and with guidance about how staff should promote people's safety. There were enough staff who were recruited in a way that helped to protect people from the risk of the service employing staff who were not suitable to work in care.

Staff had a good knowledge of people's needs and wishes so that they could support people competently and in the way they preferred. They understood the importance of seeking people's consent to deliver care. The management team knew what to do if there were concerns about people's capacity to make informed decisions. Staff new to their roles were supported by more experienced colleagues and their progress through induction was monitored by the management team. Staff felt well supported in their roles and able to raise any concerns or queries they had.

People who needed support to eat and drink enough were given this. If people needed or wished for assistance to make appointments with health professionals, staff provided it. They were alert to changes in people's health and ensured they sought advice promptly to promote people's wellbeing. They acted on advice they were given about promoting people's health and welfare.

Staff supported people with kindness and with respect for their dignity. There were isolated lapses in the way staff protected people's privacy when they called on people in their flats. However, people were generally satisfied with the way staff behaved towards them. They were involved in decisions about how they wanted their care to be delivered and family members were kept informed if this was necessary and the person wished for them to be involved. People's independence was promoted so that they were encouraged to do what they could for themselves and staff supported them with what they could not manage or where they needed reassurance.

People's needs were assessed and staff understood how they were expected to offer support to meet the requirements of each person. The management team was in the process of updating records where this was necessary to ensure they reflected people's current needs. They were working with other professionals to ensure that they were able to meet the needs of people who were accepted into the service.

Although not everyone could remember being given information about what to expect if they made a complaint, they were confident they could raise concerns with the manager and have them addressed. Complaints were followed up and investigated appropri

Inspection carried out on 12 November 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection, we spoke with six people who used the service, four staff and the registered manager.

Most of the people we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care they received. One person said, �I have no complaints.� Another person said, �I am happy with the care.� A further person said, �They are there if you need them, they are very, very good.�

However, people and the staff told us that there were not always enough staff to assist people when they needed it. We were made aware that the provider was aware of this issue and had plans in place to increase the number of care hours given to people to ensure that their needs were met in a more timely manner.

People were asked for their consent before any personal care was given. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of how to reduce the risk of spreading infection.

The required checks were being completed on the staff before they started working at the service to ensure they were of good character. The staff told us they felt supported by the management team.

The service had an effective system in place to monitor the quality of care they provided.

Inspection carried out on 1 March 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We looked at how medicines were managed because we found some shortfalls when we visited the service in January 2013. During this inspection we found appropriate arrangements for the recording, handling and safe administration of medicines were in place. People we spoke to were pleased with the support staff gave them with their medicines. Staff had received training in relation to medicine management and their competency was regularly checked.

Inspection carried out on 3 January 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we spoke with four people. They told us that they felt well cared for and liked living at Weavers Court. One person told us �"Staff are wonderful, I have nothing to worry about." Another said �I would recommend this place to anyone.� People told us that they had access to appropriate healthcare professionals quickly if they became ill.

Policies and processes were in place in relation to medication management however, discrepancies were found in relation to the medication records. This meant that we could not be assured that medicines had been administered as prescribed and intended by the prescriber.

We found that the staff were well trained and knowledgeable and that there were enough of them to meet people�s care needs. People who used the service knew how to complain if they wanted to and we saw that they were able to give their feedback regularly.

Inspection carried out on 13 September 2011

During a routine inspection

When we visited Weavers Court, we were invited to see and to talk with two people who live in their flats on site and we spoke to another person in a communal area.

They all stated that they felt as if they were in a �five star hotel�. They were very happy with the accommodation they live in. One of people told us: �You could not wish for anything better. They (staff) respond straight away when we call them.�

The third person we spoke with explained that they were very confident that �staff know what they are doing,� and all three of them confirmed that staff were very good.

One person stated that they were happy with the arrangement for medication, for the preparation of meals and the provision of cooked lunch on site.

All three people told us that staff helped them with the care according to the agreed care plans. One person had two allocated time slots, the other person had three and one person had one slot of time. All three stated that they could call staff any time, day or night, if any kind of emergency occurred.

All people with whom we spoke stated that they felt safe, well protected and very comfortable in this supportive environment.

All comments that people provided in the last survey related to minor issues about how to further improve service and provisions. For example, one of the comments was about cutting the branches of the tree in the communal garden. The manager explained that a gardener was already contracted for this and that only the right time for trimming the tree was being waited for.