Archived: St Edmunds Court

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.

This announced inspection took place on 6 February 2017. This is the first ratings inspection at this location since Hales Group Limited became the registered provider on 06 June 2016.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People had support and care plans in place which provided staff with guidance that they needed when providing support and care to people. These plans contained information such as how people wished to be assisted, their likes and dislikes and what was important to them. People and/or their relatives were involved in the setting up, agreement and review of their/ their family member’s plans of care.

People were supported by staff in a respectful, caring and kind manner. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff when entering their home and assisting them with their personal care.

Arrangements were in place to make sure that people, where needed, were supported safely with the management of their prescribed medicines by staff. There were guidelines in place for staff regarding the administration of ‘time sensitive’ medicines. Although staff had knowledge of how to support people with their increased anxiety, prior to ‘as required’ medicine being administered; detailed recorded 'step-by-step' information was not in place as guidance for staff members.

People were assisted to maintain their health and well-being and were supported to access external health care professionals where needed. People’s nutritional needs were met.

Plans were put in place to manage and minimise people’s identified risks and to support people to live as independent life as possible and remain in their own homes.

Staff understood their responsibility to report any suspicions of harm or poor care practice. Staff meetings took place and staff were encouraged to raise any suggestions or concerns that they may have had and provide feedback on any improvements to be made.

Pre-employment recruitment checks were undertaken before new staff were employed. This was to make sure that they were of a good character and suitable to work with the people they were supporting.

Documented evidence showed that there was a sufficient number of staff available to support people with the care that they required.

Staff were trained to provide effective care which met people’s individual care and support needs. Staff were supported by the registered manager to develop their skills and knowledge through supervisions, spot checks, and appraisals to review their confidence, competency and training needs.

Staff received training and understood the basic principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This meant that there was a reduced risk that any decisions made on people's behalf by staff would be made in their best interest and be as least restrictive as possible.

The registered manager sought feedback about the quality of the service. They had in place quality monitoring checks to identify areas of improvement needed. These checks and corresponding actions were in place to identify and drive forward improvements required.

There was an ‘open’ culture within the service. People and their relatives were able to raise any concerns that they might have with staff and the registered manager. Records showed that these were responded to and resolved, where possible, to the complainants’ satisfaction.

Notifications are information on important events that happen at the service that the provider is required to notify us about by law. The current registered manager was aware of all of the important events they needed to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about.