Forest Court Care Home

Updated 4 March 2023

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector 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.

Service and service type

Forest Court Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and/or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. Forest Court Care Home is a care home with nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who had visited the service. The provider was not asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to this inspection. A PIR is information providers send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 8 people’s relatives to gain their view of the care provided. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with 14 members of staff which included the nominated individual, operations manager, registered manager, deputy manager, a nurse, 3 care staff, one agency care staff, the activities co-ordinator, 3 housekeeping staff and the maintenance person. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider.

We reviewed 6 people’s care records and a selection of records related to the management of people’s medicines. We reviewed the recruitment records of 3 staff and the service’s training record.

We also reviewed records and documents relating to the management of the service which included a selection of procedures and protocols, audits, maintenance records and meeting minutes.

Updated 4 March 2023

About the service

Forest Court Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 40 people. The service provides support to people who live with dementia and who live with other needs which have an impact on their mental health. At the time of our inspection there were 33 people using the service.

People are accommodated in one adapted building across 2 floors. On the ground floor there are several communal rooms for people’s use. Additional space also allows people to walk with purpose. An enclosed garden, with a circular footpath, is accessible from one of the communal rooms. People have their own bedrooms with toilet and washing facilities. There are additional communal toilets and bathrooms which have been adapted to support people who are less able to bathe independently.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

All of the 8 relatives we spoke with provided us with positive feedback, about how staff kept their relative safe, how they were kept updated about their relative’s health and how they were supported to be involved in the planning of their relative’s care. They found the staff to be supportive and friendly and described the registered manager as being approachable and easy to speak with.

There were arrangements in place to support people to stay safe. The provider was reviewing their processes to ensure they could continue to support people safely, in the event of delayed ambulance response times. This included emergency situations associated with seizures and falls.

We have made a recommendation in relation to the provider’s pre-admission assessment record.

There had been challenges in recruiting and retaining staff, but the provider had taken action to ensure there remained enough staff to meet people’s needs. Successful, recruitment of staff from overseas had helped to improve this situation. The provider had reviewed their recruitment processes to ensure robust recruitment practices were maintained.

People’s medicines were managed safely, and people were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. This included when people lacked the mental capacity to consent to take medicines which they required for their physical or mental health. Staff worked closely with the attending GP to ensure people’s medicines were appropriately reviewed.

Measures were in place to keep the environment maintained and clean. Actions were taken to prevent the spread of infection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s relatives and representatives were consulted and kept informed about people’s care and supervision needs. Care was planned in discussion with people and their representatives to ensure care was personalised and delivered in people’s best interests. People’s care and support was adjusted when their health declined and at the end of their life to support a comfortable and dignified death.

People were supported to take part in activities which were both therapeutic and socially beneficial. The activities co-ordinator worked alongside the care staff when people expressed signs of distress, and used activities which were meaningful to people to help retain their wellbeing.

The provider’s representatives had processes in place to monitor the quality of services being provided to people and to ensure the business remained financially viable. The registered manager and operations manager provided leadership and guidance to staff so they could carry out their roles effectively and safely. They ensured the service’s policies and procedures were updated and best practice guidance was in place for staff to follow.

Staff meetings and daily staff handovers took place to aid effective communication between staff about people’s needs. There were processes in place to assess, monitor and act on risks.

Plans were in place to reintroduce face to face relative meetings, following restrictions during the pandemic. Processes were in place to respond to feedback received and to listen to and address any complaints.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and or who are autistic.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 24 April 2020). The rating following this inspection remains the good.

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about how people were supported to move, how their personal care was delivered, the administration of medicines and the management of the service overall. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the safe, responsive and well-led sections of this full report.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Forest Court Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.