Archived: St Edmunds Court

Updated 9 October 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one 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.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care and support to people living in

specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with six people who used the service and three relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with six members of staff including the training and development manager, the registered manager, three senior care workers, and one care worker.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and medication records. We looked at a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including compliments and complaints records.

Updated 9 October 2019

About the service

St Edmunds Court is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to 18 older people in an extra care housing scheme based in the outskirts of Peterborough. The extra care housing scheme was one building that housed 51 flats within one building. The building also has its own restaurant and communal lounges and gardens that people could use.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.

Staffing levels were looked at to make sure they were satisfactory to meet the needs of the people using the service. People felt safe due to their care being provided by staff.

Risk assessments identified possible risks to people`s well-being and health needs. Information was available to guide staff on how to minimise these risks as far as practicable. Staff worked with guidance from external health and social care professionals across different organisations. This helped people’s well-being.

Medicines were safely managed.

Staff knew the people they supported. To develop their skills and knowledge staff received regular training, spot checks, supervisions, and appraisals. People were supported to maintain their independence. There was an in-house restaurant run by an external company that people and their visitors could use should they wish to. In communal areas, drinks and snacks were available during certain times of the day.

Staff promoted and maintained people’s privacy and dignity. People had developed good relationships with staff who understood their individual preferences and care needs.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People`s personal information was kept secure in the agency’s office. People and their relatives were involved in discussions about their care. Compliments had been received about the care provided and any concerns raised were investigated and resolved where possible.

Staff felt supported by the new registered manager. As the registered manager was not always present due to being responsible for another location, staff told us they supported each other well.

There were regular visits from the senior management team to oversee the quality of the service provided. Audits were carried out to monitor the service and address any improvements required. The registered manager notified the CQC of incidents that they were legally obliged to.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 15 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.