Background to this inspection
Updated
20 September 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is 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 comprehensive inspection was carried out by one inspector. It took place on 06 August 2018 and we gave 48 hours notice of the visit to ensure staff were available to assist with the inspection visit and that people who used the service would be present during this.
Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service, which included notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted commissioners of the service and asked them for their views. We used this information to help us to plan the inspection.
We reviewed information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also read the provider’s own quality assurance self assessment document.
During the inspection, we spoke with four relatives, two members of staff and the registered manager. 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 considered information contained in some of the records held at the service. This included the care records for three people, staff training records and other records kept by the registered manager as part of their management and auditing of the service.
Updated
20 September 2018
We conducted an announced inspection at SENSE Manor Court on 06 August 2018. We gave the provider advanced notice of our visit because the people who lived there had complex needs and this would enable staff to prepare them for our visit. SENSE Manor Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
SENSE Manor Court is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for five people who have a learning disability and/or a sensory disability. At the time of our inspection visit there were five people living in the service.
A registered manager was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
During the home’s previous inspection on 7 July 2017, we rated the home overall as ‘Good’ but improvements were needed in Well Led regarding sending notifications to CQC. During this inspection, we found this improvement had been made but we found some other areas of concern and the overall rating has now changed to ‘Requires Improvement’. The details of the reasons why are explained in the summary below and in the body of the main report.
People were supported by staff who understood the risks they could face and knew how to keep them safe. Most risks to people’s health and safety were identified and action was taken when needed to reduce these, but this was not the case for using the communal grounds. There were not always sufficient or suitably skilled staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff underwent appropriate recruitment checks before they commenced their employment. People received their medicines as prescribed although they could be managed more safely. People were being protected from infection because safe practices were being followed.
People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision and had an understanding of their needs. People were supported to make choices and decisions for themselves. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service (do not) support this practice
People had a nutritious diet which met their needs and they were provided with any support they needed to ensure they had enough to eat and drink. Staff understood people’s healthcare needs and their role in supporting them with these. Systems were in place to ensure people lived in a properly that was well maintained.
People were cared for and supported by staff who respected them as individuals. Staff had caring relationships with people and respected their privacy and dignity. People were enabled to express the care they wanted to receive.
The lack of clear care planning meant that people may not receive the care they require. People were encouraged and supported to participate in meaningful interaction and activities. People would be supported to raise any complaints or concerns they had which would be dealt with. People’s end of life wishes were known so that these could be acted upon when needed.
Staff worked well as a team and felt supported with their work by the registered manager. We have made a recommendation about improving the systems in place for auditing and monitoring the service as they were not effective in identifying where improvements were needed.