Archived: Augustus Court

Updated 9 January 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 2 December 2020 and was announced.

Updated 9 January 2021

Augustus Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

Augustus Court is registered to provide accommodation for people who require personal care and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 53 people in receipt of care from the service.

This inspection took place on 27 June and 3 July 2018 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection in September 2017 the service was rated inadequate overall as we found safeguarding concerns had not always been acted upon and incidents that had not been recorded which meant processes were not followed in accordance with the provider’s policies to keep people safe from avoidable harm and alleged abuse. Statutory notifications were not always submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as required and risk assessments did not always reflect people's needs. Complaints had not always been responded to in a timely manner, or at times not recorded. We also identified shortfalls in recording. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what steps they would take to improve and by when.

At this inspection we found the provider had taken appropriate steps to make the required improvements and that these had been sustained since our last inspection. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations 12, 16 and 17. We found incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns were being managed effectively with the relevant notifications being sent to the CQC. Risk assessments had been carried out when there was a need and reviewed on a regular basis. We found record keeping had improved within medicines and repositioning charts however, there were still some ongoing recording issues within care records and we have therefore made a recommendation for these to be improved.

At the time of this inspection 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 using the service felt safe and staff had a clear understanding of how to protect people from any harm. Staff were provided with annual safeguarding and whistleblowing training. There was a policy in place for staff to follow and report concerns, we found incidents relating to alleged abuse had been reported and the local safeguarding team involved when required. Accidents and incidents had been recorded and reported. This followed the provider’s policy on effectively managing incidents to prevent re-occurrence.

Medicines were managed effectively and all medicines stored correctly in line with the provider’s policy.

Health and safety checks were carried out to ensure the safety of the premises and the home was kept clean.

Staffing levels were satisfactory to meet people's needs and recruitment checks were robust to ensure staff were of suitable good character to work in a care setting. There was an induction programme for new staff and staff completed training on a regular basis to ensure their knowledge and skills were up to date.

Initial assessments were carried out before a person moved to the home and following this individualised care plans were created to ensure people’s needs were met. Care plans were reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed.

People told us that staff maintained their privacy and dignity whilst promoting their independence when possible. We observed practices that supported this feedback.

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

Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and we found people were offered choice about their food preferences. People also received appropriate support from staff to maintain their health and wellbeing.

The provider followed their legal obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and implemented best practice guidance relating to capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were made.

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager, that they were approachable and open and had made significant improvements from the last inspection. Regular supervisions also took place to ensure staff developed their skills and knowledge. We found not all staff appraisals had been completed and the registered manager had a plan to ensure these would be completed in due course.

Audits were carried out to ensure effective monitoring of the service and to identify where improvements were needed. We saw from the last inspection the provider used an ongoing improvement plan to ensure any actions from audits were being addressed accordingly.

The provider used questionnaires, surveys and meetings to receive feedback about the service and to monitor the quality of the service provided to help drive improvements and develop the service delivered.

Statutory notifications were being reported to the Commission and information relating to serious or concerning information was also being shared with external agencies such as the local authority safeguarding adults team and local authority commissioning services.