You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

Keble Court provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation, in a shared site or building. At Keble Court this accommodation consists of individual flats in one complex, which have been bought by individuals and is their own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support provided by the service. Not everyone living at Keble Court received regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to five older people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 25 April 2018 and was carried out by one inspector. The inspection was announced, which meant the provider and staff knew we would be visiting. We announced the inspection to ensure that people we needed to speak with would be available. At the time of inspection the service was supporting five people, who lived in four different flats. At the time of inspection one person had recently been admitted to hospital for treatment.

The service had a manager in place at the time of our inspection who was not yet 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 service manager was in the process of completing their registration with CQC.

People were kept safe from harm by staff who knew what to do in order to maintain their safety. Staff promoted people’s independence by discussing any risks to their safety with them and how these could be managed. Risks to people were assessed and action was taken to minimise any avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed, in accordance with current and relevant professional guidance.

The provider operated thorough recruitment procedures to ensure staff were safe to support older people living in their own home. Needs and risk assessments detailed the number of staff required to support each person and there were always enough staff to provide care and support to meet people’s needs safely.

Staff supported people to safely manage the control and prevention of infection by maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in their homes, particularly in relation to the safe preparation of food.

Staff raised concerns with regard to safety incidents, concerns and near misses. The manager analysed incidents and accidents to identify trends and implement measures to prevent a further occurrence.

The provider had enabled staff to develop and maintain the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs effectively. People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their nutritional needs.

Staff supported people to maintain their health and ensured they were referred promptly to appropriate healthcare professionals whenever their needs changed.

The registered manager and staff clearly understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way. People were involved in making every day decisions and choices about how they wanted to live their lives. The provider's policies and procedures supported this practice.

People

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was safe.

Staff had developed positive and trusting relationships with people that helped to keep them safe.

Staff were risk aware and supported people to manage risks to their safety, whilst promoting their independence.

There were enough suitably skilled staff deployed to meet people's needs safely.

People's medicines were managed safely by staff who had their competence to do so regularly assessed.

People were protected from the risks associated with infections because staff supported them to maintain high standards of cleanliness and hygiene within their homes.

The provider ensured learning from accidents and incidents was implemented to ensure there was no recurrence.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was effective.

People's needs and choices had been assessed and staff delivered care and support in line with current legislation and guidance to achieve effective outcomes.

Staff received appropriate supervision and support to ensure they had the required skills and experience to enable them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to make their own decisions and choices and their consent was always sought in line with legislation.

People were supported to eat a healthy, balanced diet of their choice, which met their dietary requirements.

People were supported by staff to maintain good health, had regular access to healthcare services and received on-going healthcare support when required.

People were involved in decisions about the environment within their homes.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was caring.

People were consistently treated with kindness, respect and compassion, and were given emotional support when needed.

Staff supported people to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care

People were treated with dignity and respect at all times and without discrimination.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was responsive

People, their families and staff were involved in developing their care, support and treatment plans.

People were empowered to make choices and have as much control and independence as possible.

The service ensured that people had access to the information they needed in a way they could understand it.

People knew how to complain and had access to provider's complaints procedure in a format which met their needs.

People were given the opportunity to review their end of life care needs regularly.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was well-led.

The manager promoted a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering, which achieved good outcomes for people.

Staff understood their role and responsibilities, were highly motivated, and had confidence in their manager.

The manager operated effective quality assurance systems, which identified and managed risks safely.

The manager collaborated effectively with key organisations and agencies to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.