Archived: Rockliffe Court - Hurworth

Rockliffe Court - Hurworth provides personal care to people living in their own accommodation. The accommodation is in one purpose built complex in Hurworth. On the day of our inspection there were 13 people using the service.

Not everyone using Rockcliffe Court receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a registered manager. ‘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.’

We inspected the service in May 2016 and rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’

People and relatives felt the service was safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood the importance of acknowledging poor practice and reporting their concerns to the registered manager.

Staff supported people with their medicines in a safe manner. The provider had systems in place to record accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Infection control procedures were followed. Staff had access to personal protective equipment. Contact numbers were available for staff in case of an emergency.

Staff were trained in a range of subjects to meet the needs of the service. Staff felt supported and received regular supervision. People were supported to access health care professionals where necessary.

Staff provided support and guidance with nutritional needs where necessary.

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. Staff gained consent before any intervention with the person.

People and relatives felt staff were caring. Staffing rotas were developed to ensure staff had time to meet the needs of people using the service.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity ensuring their independence was promoted.

Care plans were individualised and contained information on how to support the person in a person centred way. The provider used a variety of methods to gain information when developing care plans. For example, information from family members and health and social care professionals. People were involved in how they preferred their support to be delivered.

The provider had a system and process in place to manage complaints. No complaints had been made to the service. End of life care was not relevant at the time of this inspection.

The provider had a quality assurance process in place to ensure the quality of the care provided was monitored. People and relatives views and opinions were sought and used in the monitoring of the service.

Staff felt the registered manager was open, approachable and supportive.

Rockliffe Court - Hurworth provides personal care to people living in their own accommodation. The accommodation is in one purpose built complex in Hurworth. On the day of our inspection there were 13 people using the service.

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.

Rockliffe Court - Hurworth was last inspected by CQC on 22 May 2014 and was non-compliant with Regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. This was because risk assessments had not always been updated when they were due, which meant people and staff could be at risk of care not being delivered correctly. We checked this during our inspection and found risk assessments were now in place and up to date.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and investigated. Risk assessments were in place for people who used the service and described potential risks and the safeguards in place. Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and procedures were in place to ensure people received medicines safely.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of visits to and from external health care specialists.

People who used the service, and family members, were complimentary about the standard of care provided by Rockliffe Court – Hurworth. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care plans were written in a person centred way.

People who used the service were aware of how to make a complaint and the provider had an effective complaints process in place.

The service had links with the community and local organisations.

Staff felt supported by the manager and were comfortable raising any concerns. People who used the service and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service and staff who worked there, and looking at records.

Is the service caring? ' People told us they were given choices about how their care was provided and that these were respected by the service. We spoke with three people using the service who were complimentary about the staff at the service and stated they could raise any issue and staff were very quick to respond to them.

Is the service responsive? - The service had a programme of tenants meetings that had slipped as the manager had been away from the service; they told us these would be re-instated as soon as possible. The manager had implemented a quality assurance survey but the results had not yet been collated. People told us the service was flexible and responsive to their needs.

Is the service safe? ' The service had safeguarding policies and procedures in place and the manager and staff we spoke with knew how to respond to any concerns that were raised with them. Risk assessments were carried out to ensure that both people and staff members maintained a safe working environment but some of these were out of date for review. The manager said these would be actioned striaght away.

Is the service effective? ' We saw that care plans had a person centred format, and they showed how people's views and preferences about their care had been recorded. However risk assessments had not always been updated when they were due and this meant people and staff could be at risk of care not being delivered correctly.

People were supported to give their consent so information the service held about people was used appropriately with staff and other professionals on a need to know basis.

Is the service well-led? ' Policies and procedures were in place but were not always reviewed systematically. The manager had begun a programme to undertake quality checks and to get formal feedback from people using the service in a more structured way. We will review how the service has continued to implement its quality assurance process on our next visit.

'I talk to staff if I'm worried about anything',

'The people are all nice here' and

'I know how to make a complaint'.

We saw that care plans had a person centred format, and they showed how people's views and preferences about their care had been recorded. We saw that risk assessments had been improved and that keyworkers now reviewed these on a regular basis with the service manager.

There was a robust recruitment process for staff employed at the service with clear policies and procedures in place to ensure this was safe and fair.

We found policies and procedures stored at the service had been reviewed and shared with the staff team through meetings. The quality assurance process of how the service checked how well it delivered its service had improved but we discussed with the manager the development of a survey or obtaining service user views about the specific care and support services people received.

'The staff are brilliant and I get spoilt rotten' and

'The people are all nice here'.

We saw that care plans had been changed to a new person centred format, and where these had been completed they showed how people's views and preferences about their care had been recorded. However many of the care plans were missing dates so we could not tell when they had been written and some people had old information about taking their own medication which were very out of date. Also some people did not have risk assessments which could mean that the person and staff could be vulnerable if risks were not recorded and monitored.

We found policies and procedures stored at the service were largely out of date and required review and the quality assurance process of how the service checked how well it delivered its service was unclear.