You are here

Laurel Court (Didsbury) Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 March 2019

This inspection took place on 9 and 14 January 2019. The first day of inspection was unannounced. We carried out this inspection to see if the provider was meeting all legal requirements.

Laurel 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.

We last inspected Laurel Court (Didsbury) in October 2017 when we rated the home requires improvement overall. We identified three breaches of the regulations in relation to managing risks to people, providing adequate numbers of staff and good governance. Following the last inspection we asked the provider for an action plan to tell us how they would make improvements to meet the requirements of the regulations. We found the provider had followed their action plan and was now meeting the requirements in relation to these breaches.

Laurel Court is a purpose-built care home situated in the Withington area of Manchester. Accommodation for people is provided in a number of ‘households’ situated over three floors, with a further floor with rooms for training, staff use and storage. The home provides both residential and nursing care to older people and people who are living with dementia. The care home accommodates up to 91 people and at the time of this inspection the home was providing care and support for 86 people.

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. At the time of this inspection there was a registered manager in post at Laurel Court.

Person centred care plans and risk assessments were in place. These provided guidance and information about people’s support needs, their likes, dislikes and preferences and how to mitigate any identified risks. Staff we spoke with knew people and their needs well.

The home had effective systems for ensuring concerns about people’s safety were managed appropriately. A safe recruitment process was in place. Staff completed a thorough induction programme and regular checks were made on their development, knowledge and performance.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). A capacity assessment tool was used and applications made for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) if a person lacked capacity. The Care Quality Commission were informed of any authorisations granted.

New menus had been introduced but if people did not like the meals on offer alternatives were available via a snack menu. Kitchen staff were informed of people’s dietary needs and menus were shaped based on people’s preferences and choices. Residents were allowed time to eat at their own pace or received assistance and encouragement from members of staff.

An activities programme was in place. The activity coordinators carried out group activities and sessions but also devoted time for individuals who preferred one to one activities or going out in the community. People’s cultural and religious needs were being met by the service, with access to a chaplain on site.

There were policies and procedures in place around respecting equality and diversity, so that people were treated equally. People told us they felt included and not discriminated against.

The home was responsive to changes in people’s needs and any changes were documented following scheduled reviews of care or following an incident. Relatives were kept up to date with information regarding their family member.

Laurel Court had a complaints policy in place. Issues raised verbally had been recorded and responded to.

We received positive feedback about the leadership and manageme

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 March 2019

Care records contained specific risk assessments and staff understood how to support people to minimise risks from occurring.

Systems in place for the receipt, storage and administration of medicines were robust and kept people safe.

Required safety and maintenance checks were being carried out at regular intervals to maintain the safety of people living in the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 March 2019

Staff had opportunities to meet with their manager to discuss their work, performance and training and development needs.

Staff gained consent from people before carrying out care.

The service was effective in responding to deteriorations in people�s health and involved other professionals in reviews of care.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 March 2019

Care plans detailed how people liked to receive their care and specified likes and dislikes.

Staff demonstrated knowledge of dignity and privacy issues and gave examples of how they respected people�s rights and wishes

People were encouraged to do things independently if it was safe to do so.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 March 2019

The care planning process was person centred and focused on the person as an individual.

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the information was up to date.

The home supported and promoted people to maintain their faith if they wished to do so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 March 2019

There were robust audit systems in place to monitor accidents, incidents or safeguarding concerns within the home.

The company used various ways to obtain feedback from people using the service and their relatives so that the service could continuously improve.

Ways of improving practice were communicated to staff to enhance the quality of care.