Carl Court

Updated 12 February 2019

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 was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 8 and 9 January 2019 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care 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.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, including any statutory notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send us within the required timescale. We assessed the information we received from the provider in their Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We contacted the local authority quality improvement team and safeguarding team to gain their views of the service provided. We also received feedback from five health professionals who had regular contact with the home. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

We looked at care records for five people who lived at the home. We examined documents relating to recruitment, supervision and training records and various records about how the home was managed. We also had a tour of the home and viewed people's bedroom with their permission. We spoke to ten people who lived in the home, three relatives, both registered providers, deputy manager and three carers.

Updated 12 February 2019

We carried out this inspection on 8 and 9 January 2019. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

This service was last inspected in July 2016 and was rated good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Carl 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.

There were 14 people living in the home at the time we carried out our inspection.

The registered providers were also the registered managers at the home and they were responsible for the day-to-day management of the service. This report refers to them as the providers. 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.

Without exception, everyone we spoke with expressed positivity about Carl Court, providing evidence of the home’s ability to make them feel cared for and safe. People were treated with kindness and respect and were offered care in a dignified manner in caring surroundings. One person said, “I feel very well cared for. My room is lovely and clean, and the carers always have time for me.” Relatives told us they felt totally comfortable and happy with the care at Carl Court. One relative said, “We love it. When we arrived [providers name] greeted us at the door and said, ‘welcome home.’ And that’s what it is, a home.”

People, relatives and staff told us they felt the home was well led and the providers were passionate, accessible and approachable. The providers had a good oversight of what was happening in the home and demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of all areas. Systems were in place to audit the quality of the service. However, some processes needed to be strengthened to ensure that all aspects of the home were maintained and regularly reviewed. We made a recommendation to the providers to review their governance systems.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and planned for. Risk assessments identified what support was needed to reduce and manage risk. However, some risk assessments were not up dated as they should or when things changed. We made a recommendation to the providers to review care records to ensure all risks have been assessed and are up to date.

People had their needs assessed before they moved into the home and this information was used to create individual care plans. These plans included guidance for staff to follow to ensure people's individual needs were met. Whilst some care plans provided staff with guidance on how to support people safely as well as providing information on people's preferences, we found that some would benefit from further person centred information. We made a recommendation to the providers about developing person-centred care plans.

Staff understood their responsibility in protecting people from the risk of harm. People were assisted by suitable numbers of staff who were trained and supported in their job roles. Staff had been safely recruited and had received an induction to the service.

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

People told us they enjoyed the food. People's dietary and nutritional needs were assessed, recorded and managed and advice was sought from nutrition specialists when needed. People had support to access professional medical advice and treatment and attend routine medical appointments. Health professionals were extremely complimentary about the care at Carl Court.

The home was clean and had all required health and safety checks and documentation in place. Equipment was regularly serviced, and fire checks were regularly undertaken within the home. Individual emergency evacuation plans were in place for people.

The providers had a clear complaints policy that people and their relatives knew how to access. People told us they felt confident to raise any concerns they had and felt they would be promptly addressed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.