Archived: The Court

Updated 10 May 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We were aware of an historic incident which had occurred at the home and at this inspection we checked whether on-going measures were still in place to mitigate risks and to protect the people who lived there.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 17 April 2018 and was unannounced. It was carried out by two adult social care inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We did not request a provider information return (PIR) prior to this inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We looked at statutory notifications sent in by the service. A statutory notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law. We looked at previous inspection reports and other information we held about the service before we visited. We contacted Healthwatch and local commissioners to seek their views on the service provided. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion, which promotes the views and experiences of people who use health and social care services. We used this information to plan the inspection.

During our visits we spoke with eight people who used the service and two visitors. We also spoke with two relatives on the telephone. We met with the registered manager and one of the provider’s quality and compliance managers and five members of staff. We met with people in their bedrooms and communal areas where we were also able to observe how staff interacted and communicated with people. Most of the people we met with were able to tell us about their experiences of life at the home. Some people were being nursed in bed due to their frailty. However we observed them to be clean and comfortable. We observed staff regularly checking on people to offer drinks and to check they were comfortable, and whether they wanted anything.

We looked at a sample of records relating to the running of the home and the care of individuals. These included the care records of four people who lived at the home. We also looked at records relating to the management and administration of people’s medicines, health and safety and quality assurance. We checked two staff recruitment files and staff training and supervision records.

Updated 10 May 2018

This inspection took place on 17 April 2018 and was unannounced.

The 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. The service provides accommodation with nursing care for up to 36 people.

At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living at the home.

At our last inspection in June 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

There was 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.

People felt safe living at the home. The way in which staff were deployed meant people’s needs were met in a timely and unhurried manner. People’s medicines were managed and administered in a safe way by staff who had been trained to carry out the task. People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse because the provider had effective systems in place which were understood and followed by staff. People were protected from the risk of the spread of infection.

People continued to receive effective care. People were supported by staff who were trained and competent in their roles. People’s health care needs were monitored and met. 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 practice.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who took time to get to know people and what was important to them. Staff treated people with respect and respected their right to privacy. People lived in an environment which was welcoming and homely.

People were involved in planning and reviewing the care they received which helped to ensure people received a service which met their needs and preferences. There were daily activities for people which they could choose to join in with. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to. People’s religious and cultural needs were understood and met by staff.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. People’s views were valued and any suggestions for improvement were responded to.