Medlock Court

Updated 24 November 2020

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.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

The service had been identified for use by the Local Authority as a designated care setting in response to the Winter Plan for people discharged from hospital with a positive Covid-19 status. The inspection was to ensure that the service was compliant with infection control and prevention measures.

This inspection took place on 30 October 2020 and was announced.

Updated 24 November 2020

Medlock Court provides short stay accommodation and enablement support for up to 32 people. On the day of our inspection 26 people were using the service. Medlock Court is a large, single storey, purpose built building that is accessible for people who use wheelchairs or have other mobility limitations.

This inspection took place on the 10 April 2018 and was unannounced. This was a comprehensive inspection carried out by two adult social care inspectors. The inspection had been brought forward prompted by concerns relating to a specific incident. This incident is subject to an investigation and as a result this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident.

When we last inspected Medlock Court in April 2016 we rated the service as ‘good’ and did not find any breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Since that time we received concerns about the home from a member of the public. The concerns included the management of risk of falls, medicines management, and diabetes management. At this inspection the service remained ‘good’. We found that the service had learned from previous incidents and had made improvements in order to mitigate risks appropriately.

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 told us they felt safe at the service. Staff knew how to protect people from harm and what they would do if they had any safeguarding concerns. Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to keep risks to a minimum. Lessons were learnt from complaints, safeguarding and incidents to prevent reoccurrence in the future.

The service had improved how people’s medicines were managed when they arrived at the service. The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.

Safe and robust recruitment practices were in place and sufficient staff were employed to meet the assessed needs of the people living at the home.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

The home was clean and tidy. The environment was maintained to a good standard and was homely in character.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities. This helped to protect the health and welfare of staff and people who used the service.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities of how to apply any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People told us staff were kind and caring.

We saw from our observations of staff and records that people who used the service were given choices in many aspects of their lives and helped to remain independent where possible.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed.

We saw that people were able to attend activities of their choice and families and friends were invited to visit between 13:00hrs and 20:00hrs.

Audits, surveys and resident’s meetings helped the service maintain and improve quality standards.

People told us the registered manager was approachable and supportive.