You are here

Regency Court Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 October 2018

This inspection took place on 14 and 20 August 2018. The first day was unannounced. Regency Court Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Regency Court Care Home is registered to provide nursing, care and accommodation for up to 50 people. There were 22 people living in the service when we visited. This was because two of the upper floors of the building were unoccupied. People cared for were mainly older people who were living with a range of health and care needs, including arthritis, diabetes and heart conditions. Some people were living with dementia, some of these people could show behaviours which may challenge others. Most people needed some support with their personal care, eating, drinking or mobility.

Accommodation was provided over four floors of a large town house. There were communal areas on the ground floor and a small courtyard garden to the rear. Support services like the kitchen were provided in a basement area. The service was situated close to both the main street and seafront of Littlehampton.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

This was the service’s first inspection under its current provider, HC-One Oval Limited, a national provider of care.

The two upper floors of the building were not being used, this was due to the two upper floors not being a suitable environment for people to live in. The ground and first floors, where people were accommodated, also needed some upgrading. During the inspection, both people and staff told us about their concerns about the current state of the building. After the inspection the provider sent us satisfactory information about their plans for the up-grading of the home environment.

Staff ensured the safety of people in all areas. Staff were aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding people from risk of abuse. They ensured people had any risks to them fully assessed. Where people had risks identified, care plans, which were followed by staff, were developed to reduce people’s risk.

People’s medicines were managed in a safe way and in accordance with current guidelines. There were secure facilities for the storage of medicines. The home environment was clean throughout and people were protected from risk of infection by staff who were aware of infection risk for people.

Sufficient staff were deployed on each shift. There was a stable team of staff employed, with minimal use of agency staff. Staff had been safely recruited to ensure they were suitable to provide care to people.

People commented favourably on the quality and choice of meals and drinks. Where people needed additional support with eating and drinking, this was given by staff in an appropriate way. All relevant records about people’s diet and fluids were maintained.

Staff had been supported through training, and were supervised, to ensure they had the skills they needed to meet people’s needs. Staff worked closely with relevant external professionals to ensure people were effectively supported in relation to their healthcare and other needs.

People commented on the caring nature of the staff. Staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Staff also encouraged people to be as independent as they wished to be in their daily lives.

People were responded to the in the way they wanted. Care plans were developed with people, in a person-centred way. Care plans ensured people’s consent was sought in relation to their care. Where peop

Inspection areas



Updated 5 October 2018

The service was safe.

People's safety from risk was ensured.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from risk of abuse

The arrangements for the management of medicines were safe.

Sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited in a safe way were deployed.

The service was clean and hygienic, to ensure risk of infection to people was reduced.


Requires improvement

Updated 5 October 2018

The service was not fully effective.

The home environment did not meet people's needs in all relevant areas.

Staff were trained and supported to effectively meet people's needs.

People received appropriate support to have the diet and fluids they needed.

People were supported so they received the external healthcare and other support they needed.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed.



Updated 5 October 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated respectfully and their independence encouraged.

People's privacy and dignity were protected.

Staff showed a caring, empathetic approach to people.



Updated 5 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in developing their own care plans.

People's care plans clearly set out how they needed to be cared for. Staff followed people's care plans.

A range of activities were provided to meet people�s diverse needs.

The provider's systems for addressing people's concerns and complaints were followed.



Updated 5 October 2018

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the quality of care provided.

Staff worked effectively as a team and were listened to by the registered manager which ensured an open, inclusive ethos.

There was appropriate governance and managerial oversight of the service as a whole, to maintain quality of care for people.