You are here

Asprey Court Care Home Good Also known as Asprey Court

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The inspection took place on the 22 May 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service since registering with us in August 2017.

Asprey 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.

Asprey Court accommodates 86 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection, there were 36 people living at the home. The home was separated into four units although only three were currently used. One unit accommodated people with complex nursing needs relating to their dementia, the other two unit provided nursing care for older people with Dementia.

A manager was registered with us, however we had been made aware prior to the inspection that the registered manager had left. A new manager was in post and in the process of registering with us. 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 were supported by staff who knew how to report concerns and manage risks to keep them safe. Staff were safely recruited and there were enough staff available to support people. Medication was given in a safe way, and there were safe systems in place to prevent the spread of infection.

The provider utilised innovative technology and design to ensure that the décor of the service supported people’s needs; reducing the risks posed to people and promoting their independence. The design, layout and decoration of the service had considered how to meet people’s needs without the need for further clinical equipment; meaning that people could be supported within a ‘homely’ environment.

People received support by appropriately trained staff. Training provided to staff was individual to the needs of the people they supported. People were happy with the meals they were provided with and had access to healthcare services where required. People had their rights upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. People were treated with dignity and involved in their care. Where able, people were supported to maintain their independence. Advocacy services were available if needed.

There were systems in place to assess and review people’s needs to ensure their care needs were met. There were activities available for people that met their interests. Although complaints were acted upon, further work was required around the recording of complaints.

People spoke positively about the new manager and the support provided by her. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, although further work was required around the level of detail held in records. People had been asked for their feedback on their experience of the service and the provider had a clear vision for the future of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who knew how to manage risks to ensure their safety.

There were sufficient amounts of staff to support people. Staff were recruited safely.

Medications were given safely and there were effective infection prevention systems in place.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was effective.

Innovative technologies and designs were implemented to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Staff received appropriate training and supervision.

People had their rights upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act and had access to healthcare services where needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind, caring and promoted their dignity.

People were involved in their care and encouraged to maintain their independence where possible.

People had access to advocacy services where needed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care needs were reviewed and records updated as required. People were supported by staff who knew them well.

Activities were available that met people�s individual interests.

Complaints made were investigated but records kept of complaints required further improvements.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was well led.

People and staff spoke positively about the leadership at the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, although further improvements were required in the level of detail kept in records.

People were given opportunity to feedback on their experience of the service.