You are here

Archived: Regents Court Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 April 2014
Date of Publication: 1 May 2014
Inspection Report published 01 May 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 2 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported.

Systems had been in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards which applies to care homes. The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them, but they were not always involved in writing their care plans due to their conditions. The provider had also considered information and involvement from relatives, other health professionals and staff. People we spoke were not aware of what was in their care plans but told us they were happy with the care they had received. One person told us: �I don�t worry about the paper, I like it here and they look after me well�. Specialist dietary needs had been assessed and included.

Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible and the home were accommodating and welcoming.

The staff had received training that they felt met the needs of the people. They also told us their training was kept current and were told when courses were due to be attended. This meant that staff were trained and supported to ensure that people�s needs had been met.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us: �I am able to do a lot on my own and they let me get on with it� and: �They look after me, some things I need help with. I am very happy here�. A relative said, �I visit regularly and I am confident that X (person�s name) is very well looked after�.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly and the provider had staff dedicated to arranging and supporting people to attend these activities.

The views of people and relatives had been recorded in meetings held at the home. We saw that these views had been considered. For example, communal areas had been redecorated and the home was looking to recruit a gardener. This meant that the provider considered the views of people in running the home.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had a quality assurance system in place. We saw records that identified shortfalls and the actions that had been taken to address them. Staff told us that they felt the quality of the service had continued to improve.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.