Orwell East

Updated 23 January 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 announced comprehensive inspection was carried out on 23 and 27 November 2017 by one CQC inspector who visited the office location. In addition a CQC member of staff who was a report writing coach observed the inspection process on 23 November 2017. The provider was given up to 48 hours’ notice because it is a small service and we wanted to be certain the registered manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to make arrangements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out their experience of the service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a 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 contracts and provider support teams for feedback about the service. We received no information of concern.

We reviewed information we had received about the service such as notifications. This is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also reviewed all other information sent to us from other stakeholders for example the local authority and members of the public.

With their permission we visited three people who used the service and spoke with five relatives. We observed the interactions between staff and people. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and three members of staff. We received feedback from two health and social care professionals.

To help us assess how people’s care needs were being met, we reviewed four people’s care records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service, recruitment, training, and systems for monitoring the quality of the service.

Updated 23 January 2018

Savile Court provides care and support to people living in two ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. Savile Court is also a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

At the time of this announced inspection of 22 and 27 November 2017 there were 12 people who used the service. Ten people were living in ‘supported living’ settings and two people received domiciliary care in their own homes. The provider was given up to 48 hours’ notice because it is a small service and we wanted to be certain the registered manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to make arrangements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out their experience of the service. This service was registered with CQC on 10 June 2011.

At the last inspection of 30 November 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

A registered manager was 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. They were supported by a team leader who was in charge of the day to day running of the service.

The service continued to provide a safe service to people. This included systems in place intended to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, mobility, nutrition and with their medicines. Support workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. They were available when people needed assistance and had been recruited safely.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the care provided and the approach of the registered manager and support workers. People told us that they felt safe and well cared for. Support workers had developed good relationships with people. People were able to express their views and support workers and management listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Support workers consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services. Systems were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. People’s care records were detailed and reflected a holistic approach. They consistently demonstrated how people were actively involved in making decisions about their ongoing care and support. This ensured they received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs in accordance with their wishes

People were supported by support workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs. They 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.

The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints and took action where needed. People, relatives and staff told us the registered manager was accessible, supportive and had good leadership skills. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.