You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 6 April 2018

This inspection took place on 31 January 2018 and was unannounced.

This was the first inspection of this service since it registered with CQC in January 2017. Selig 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. The accommodation is rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regular premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Selig Court has 45 one and two bedroomed flats. It is run by Jewish Care. Priority is given to Jewish people who are Holocaust survivors or refugees from all parts of the world, aged over 60. On the day of the inspection there were 49 people living at the service, 21 of whom were receiving care and support from the service.

Selig Court is within a complex of other services run by the provider and people living there can access these facilities including restaurants and a day service. The service had a registered manager, which 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.

People told us they were happy living at the service, and the facilities were of a high quality and the standard of care provided was good. People told us staff were kind and caring.

Medicines were safely managed and the provider was in the process of updating the medicines policy to improve medicines management across the range of their services.

People’s needs were identified and responded to well. Risk assessments were drawn up integrating people’s views and care records were person centred. Care documentation had all been updated within the last 12 months or more recently if people’s needs changed.

There was a wide range of activities for people to engage in which encouraged people to maintain varied and active lives and contributed to the service being personalised.

Staff told us they enjoyed working there and felt supported in their caring role. We saw they received regular supervision and training. Staff understood about safeguarding people from abuse and what to do if they had any concerns.

Staff recruitment was safe which meant staff were considered safe to work with vulnerable people. People told us there were enough staff to support people’s needs, although some people told us they would prefer the continuity provided by regular staff over agency staff.

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 at the service supported this practice.

People and staff spoke well of the organisation, the registered manager and the management team as they were responsive to people’s needs and supported staff well.

The provider had a clear vision and credible strategy to deliver high-quality care and support. The strategy was well-embedded at this service. Systems at the service supported continuous learning and improvement. The registered manager and provider had a range of systems in place to check the quality of the service through quality audits. There were also systems to prompt management actions which meant care documentation was regularly updated. The service was in the process of reviewing care documentation to ensure there was no duplication of information which would further assist staff in their caring roles.

The service responded to people’s concerns and complaints, and used this to improve the quality of care. The service learnt lessons and made improvements when things went wrong.

Inspection areas



Updated 6 April 2018

The service was safe. Risk assessments were in place and covered a wide range of needs identified.

Medicines were stored and administered safely.

There were enough staff to support people�s needs and staff were safely recruited.

The provider ensured people were protected from the risk of infection.



Updated 6 April 2018

The service was effective. Staff were regularly supervised and received appropriate training in key areas to carry out their role.

People were at liberty to leave the premises as they wished and staff understood the need to obtain consent from people using the service.

There were kosher restaurants in the complex which people could either attend or have food brought to their flats. Some people managed their own food and meals but staff were available to provide support if necessary.



Updated 6 April 2018

The service was caring. People were treated with kindness and respect, and were given emotional support when needed.

People were asked for their views on how the service was run. The service supported people to maintain their cultural and religious requirements.

People�s friends and relatives were welcomed to the service and the communal facilities were made available for individual as well as collective religious services.

The service promoted people�s independence and ensured people's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.



Updated 6 April 2018

The service was responsive. People�s changing needs were identified and responded to well.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs and the varied range of activities available to people living at the service further ensured care and support was personalised.

There was a complaints process in place and we found the provider followed their complaints policy effectively.



Updated 6 April 2018

The service was well-led. The provider had a clear vision to support people. There were quality audits in place to monitor the quality of the care.

There were systems in place to prompt management action which meant care records were up to date and staff received supervision and were prompted to undergo training.

The registered manager and management team were well regarded by the people who lived there.