Archived: Brunel Court

Updated 10 January 2019

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection completed on the 26 and 27 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that they would be in. The inspection was completed by one adult social care 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.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information, we held about the service. We reviewed notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us since their registration. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send us by law.

We reviewed the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. 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.

During our inspection we met with nine people all who received support with personal care and lived in their own home. We also spoke to four visitors and seven staff members. We received feedback from two professionals involved in the service.

We looked at five records which related to people’s individual care needs. We viewed four staff recruitment files, training evidence and records associated with the management of the service. This included policies and procedures, people and staff feedback, and the complaints process.

Updated 10 January 2019

The inspection took place on 26 and 27 November 2018. We gave notice of our intention to visit Brunel Court to make sure people we needed to speak with were available.

Sevacare (UK) Limited provides personal care services for people living in an extra care housing scheme at Brunel Court. Brunel Court is one of four extra care housing schemes in the city which Sevacare (UK) Limited manage along with an agency providing care in people’s homes as their “Portsmouth Branch”. The management of the buildings and facilities at Brunel Court is not the responsibility of Sevacare (UK) Limited. The buildings contain self-contained flats with some shared facilities. Sevacare (UK) Limited has an office from which they manage their service. At the time of our inspection there were 41 people receiving personal care and support.

The service had 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. The registered manager, who oversees several other extra care housing schemes in the local area, is supported by a service manager. They are in day to day control of Brunel Court.

At the last inspection on the 24 June 2016, the service was rated Good. However, it was rated Requires Improvement in Responsive. The service has now improved to Good in Responsive. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service remained rated Good.

During the last inspection we found the area Responsive was requires improvement. At that time people were not always satisfied that their care and support met their needs and preferences.

People now said the service was responsive to their needs. One person said; “I was struggling to keep up……. but since I have been here I have been settled.” Another said; “I’ve got complex medical issues and it’s good to know I can get extra help if I need it.” A relative said; “Mum is very happy here. We live away abroad so it’s a comfort to us that she is safe and well cared for.”

The service was responsive to people's needs and people were able to make choices about their day to day routines. People had access to a range of organised and informal activities which provided them with mental and social stimulation. People were supported to access the local community.

People were enabled and supported to lead fulfilling, independent and active lives. People 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. One relative said, “We live away abroad so it’s a comfort to us that she is safe and well cared for.”

People continued to be safe using the service. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. People had their needs met by suitable numbers of staff, with additional staff support arranged when needed. A few staff felt that additional staff would enable people to receive their care in a timely manner. However, no one spoken with had an issue with the times they received their visits from staff or the frequency of the visits. All people spoken with where happy with the support they received.

Peoples’ medicines were managed safely. Staff received medicines training and understood the importance of safe administration and management of medicines.

People were protected from abuse because staff knew what action to take if they suspected someone was being abused, mistreated or neglected. One staff member said; “I’d have no hesitation on talking to X (name of the service manager) and I’d know they would deal with it.”

Peoples’ risks were assessed, monitored and managed by staff to help ensure they remained safe. Risk assessments had been completed to help support and enable people to retain as much independence as possible and help reduce risks from occurring. Risks associated with people's care and living environment were effectively managed to ensure their freedom was promoted. People were supported by mostly consistent staff to help meet their needs.

People received effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff confirmed they attended team meetings and they received one to one supervision to monitor their practice with appraisals of performance. Staff without formal care qualifications completed the Care Certificate (a nationally recognised training course for staff new to care). Staff said the Care Certificate training looked at and discussed the Equality and Diversity policy of the company.

People’s equality and diversity was respected and people were supported in the way they wanted to be. People's human rights were protected because the registered manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People who required assistance with their food made choices of meals, snacks and drinks they enjoyed. Staff monitored people's health and well-being and made sure they had access to other healthcare professionals according to their individual needs.

People continued to receive a service that was caring. Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion for people through their conversations and interactions. If people found it difficult to communicate or express themselves, staff offered additional support and showed patience and understanding.

People could make a complaint and were confident action would be taken to address their concerns. The registered manager treated complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve. The complaints procedure was available in an easy read version to assist people.

People’s communication needs were known by staff. Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs, for example using simple questions and easy to understand information for people with cognitive difficulties. The service remained responsive to people's individual needs and provided personalised care and support. The registered manager had taken account of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a requirement to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss are given information they can understand, and the communication support they need. People received information in a format suitable for their individual needs. Throughout the inspection we saw evidence of how the registered manager and staff understood and promoted people's rights as equals regardless of their disabilities, backgrounds or beliefs.

The service was well led. The provider had systems in place to monitor, assess and improve the service. There was an open culture, and people and staff said they found access to the office and registered manager welcoming and easy. Staff were positive and happy in their jobs. There was a clear organisational structure in place.