Archived: St Armands Court

St Armands Court is a large purpose built accommodation. The service provides care and support for up to 40 older people. The service is close to all local amenities.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were aware of action they should take if abuse was suspected.

Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety.

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed by staff and records of these assessments had been reviewed. Peoples care plans were written in a way that instructed staff to know what people’s needs were. The staff knew more detail about people than was recorded in care plans and the registered manager was working to ensure this detail was recorded.

We saw people’s care plans were not always person centred and written in a way to describe how people would like their care to be delivered. They did however describe the tasks staff needed to do to care for them. These were regularly evaluated, reviewed and updated. We saw evidence to demonstrate people were involved in all aspects of their care plans.

We saw staff had received supervision on a regular basis and an annual appraisal. Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for.

People told us there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We found safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Systems in place to manage people’s medicines were overall appropriate and safe. The service did not have specific protocols in place for use of ‘as and when’ required medicines or prescribed creams.

There were positive interactions between people and staff. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect. People told us they were happy and felt very well cared for.

We saw people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks which helped to ensure their nutritional needs were met. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services.

People’s independence was encouraged and their hobbies and leisure interests were individually assessed. We saw there was a plentiful supply of activities which people told us they enjoyed.

The registered provider had a system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. People were regularly asked for their views.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw there were a range of audits carried out both by the registered provider, registered manager and senior staff within the organisation. We saw where issues had been identified there was not always action plans with agreed timescales in place.

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 were treated with respect and dignity by staff. Relatives we spoke with told us they felt confident people were safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learned 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.

The home had proper 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.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them or their relatives. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Relatives of people who used the service said they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

Visitors confirmed they were able to see people in private and visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'Everybody is so kind here, I can't believe it.' Another person told us, 'Staff are always kind. I cannot complain; everything is good.'

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities.

Relatives of people who used the service knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Although relatives we spoke with told us they had not needed to make a complaint they told us they were confident any issues would be addressed immediately. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

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 people received a good quality service at all times.

We spoke with five people who used the service about their experience of living in the home. They told us 'Staff looked after them well' and 'Staff arranged for a dentist to come home when I had a problem with my tooth'. People who used the service appeared happy with the care and support they received. This was because people were treated with respect and supported in meeting their care needs, whilst maintaining their independence.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

The provider had an infection control policy and had put in place procedures to protect people from the risk of infection. Some auditing of infection control procedures had been undertaken but arrangements were not sufficiently thorough. This meant that people who used the service were not adequately protected from the risks of acquiring health care associated infections.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure available.

The registered manager was on leave at the time of our visit, so we spoke with the deputy manager.

We spoke with six people who used the service and they told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. People made positive comments about the staff. Comments included:

'Staff are lovely, very kind and helpful.'

'There is nothing negative I can say about the staff. They are wonderful.'

'There are enough staff about if I need one.'

'We're very well looked after here.'

'There isn't a member of staff that you couldn't say was anything but kind and helpful.'

We spoke with one relative who told us; 'The staff are good. They are very patient. The care is excellent. We're kept involved.'

During our visit we observed positive interactions between staff and people who lived at St Armands Court. We saw that staff spoke at a pace which met people's needs and engaged with people in a calm and patient way, which allowed people time to explain what they wanted or where they wanted to go. We spoke with three members of staff who told us there were enough staff to meet people's needs and they had plenty of opportunities for training.