• Care Home
  • Care home

OSJCT Buckland Court

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

South Mill Road, Amesbury, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 7HR (01980) 623506

Provided and run by:
The Orders Of St. John Care Trust

All Inspections

22 August 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

OSJCT Buckland Court is a care home without nursing for up to 50 people. People had their own rooms and access to communal rooms such as bathrooms, dining rooms and lounges. People had access to outside space as the home had large gardens around the building. At the time of the inspection there were 34 people living at the home, some of whom had dementia.

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

Improvements had been made to the management oversight of the service. The provider had developed detailed action plans to address the shortfalls identified at the last inspection. The plans included information about who was responsible for completing actions and had been regularly reviewed to ensure they were on track. Progress to complete actions was overseen by the area operations manager.

The management team had reviewed all incidents in a timely way. Records demonstrated actions had been taken to learn from incidents and reduce the risk of a similar incidents happening again.

The registered manager had reviewed the medicines administration procedures with staff and identified the reasons for errors identified at the last inspection. Changes had been made to the way staff worked, to ensure they provided the support people needed. This had resulted in a reduction in the number of medicines errors in the service. When errors had occurred, detailed reviews had been completed to understand the reason for the error and plan further actions to address the issues.

There were a series of audits, to assess how key aspects of the service were operating. These included assessments of the medicines management systems, care planning, risk assessments and observations of staff practice. Actions from the assessments had been followed through to ensure improvements were implemented by all staff.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 27 July 2022)

Why we inspected

We undertook this targeted inspection to check whether the Warning Notice we previously served in relation to Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had been met. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains requires improvement.

We use targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

30 June 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

OSJCT Buckland Court is a care home without nursing for up to 50 people. People had their own rooms and access to communal rooms such as bathrooms, dining rooms and lounges. People had access to outside space as the home had large gardens around the building. At the time of the inspection there were 37 people living at the home, some of whom had dementia.

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

At our last inspection we found the service was in breach of two regulations. At this inspection this had not improved, and the service remained in breach of the same two regulations.

People’s medicines were not always managed safely. We found numbers of recording gaps on people’s medicines records. This meant the provider could not be assured people had their prescribed medicine as required. We also observed one person had not been given their medicine for four days as the service had ran out of stock. The registered manager provided us assurance the stock would be due in on the day of our inspection. Staff had received training on medicines administration and had checks on their competence annually.

Quality monitoring systems were still not effective in identifying shortfalls found during the inspection. The medicines audit completed prior to our visit had not identified the recording gaps seen on medicines records.

Incidents and accidents were recorded on forms on the provider’s electronic system. Whilst we could see what immediate action staff had taken in response to the incidents, the action for lessons learned was not recorded or always clear. Action recorded to prevent reoccurrence was not robust. We found two falls which had not been shared with the local authority or notified to CQC.

Staff had been recruited safely and there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager regularly monitored people’s needs and used a staff dependency tool to calculate numbers. Agency staff were used to fill gaps when there was staff absence.

The home was clean throughout. On the day of inspection, we observed domestic staff cleaning and taking care of people’s laundry. Staff were wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). We were told the provider had good stock of PPE and staff had never been without supplies through COVID-19.

People had visitors when they wished, and people told us they liked living at the home. People told us staff were caring and they had no concerns. There were regular ‘resident meetings’ to talk about what was going on in the home and seek people’s views. The provider had organised virtual relatives’ meetings and the registered manager told us she would be holding local ones soon.

Staff were able to attend staff meetings and handovers to hear about changes and new guidance for working safely. Meeting minutes were kept and shared with all staff who were not able to attend.

Risks to people’s safety had been identified and risk management plans were in place to give staff guidance where needed. Staff reviewed them regularly and updated them when needed. Systems were in place to make sure health and safety checks were carried out. This was done at a local and provider level.

Staff worked in partnership with many local professionals to make sure people’s health needs were met. The registered manager knew who to contact in the local authority if they needed guidance on COVID-19.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 4 March 2020). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found the provider remained in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 17 December 2019. Two breaches of legal requirements were found.

We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for OSJCT Buckland Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

We have identified breaches in relation to medicines management and systems for governance at this inspection.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

17 December 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

OSJCT Buckland Court is a residential care home providing personal care without nursing for up to 50 older people. At the time of the inspection 42 people were living at the home. Some people had limited verbal communication, so we captured some of their experiences through observations. On the first day of inspection 10 people were out for most of the day at a Christmas party.

The home had a separate dementia unit which was more secure to keep people safe. There was a community “Animal Ark” being created in the grounds to house a variety of animals. Some people attended the home during the day to attend the day service. We do not regulate people who attend this facility. There was also the facility for people to complete short stays at the home.

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

People felt safe and well cared for living at the home. However, improvements were required in medicine management and reducing risks when identified. No impact was found to people in these areas.

Systems to audit the home were in place at both provider and management level. However, when these had identified improvements which needed to be made action had not always been taken in a timely manner. Provider’s policies were not always followed by staff and the management. During and following the inspection, improvements and ways to mitigate risks had been shared with us by the management.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported by enough staff, although care staff felt they would like more time to socialise with people. Staff were kind and caring throughout the inspection. Only positive interactions between people and staff were witnessed. Staff clearly knew the people living in the home well. Staff respected privacy and dignity throughout the inspection.

The management had driven a positive culture of the home being part of the community. Links had been developed with other health and social care professionals and plans to continue this were shared. The current management clearly wanted to make improvements and were open during the inspection to how this could be achieved.

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 29 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to medicine management and timely responses to identified issues recognised by the management at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

7 June 2017

During a routine inspection

OSJCT Buckland Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 50 older people. At the time of our inspection 35 people were living at Buckland Court. At the last inspection in December 2015, we identified that the service was in breach of regulations relating to consent. At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to address this breach of the regulations.

This inspection took place on 7 June 2017 and was unannounced. We returned on 8 June 2017 to complete the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who use the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff and management. Comments from people included, “The staff are very nice, I get on well with them. They know what they’re doing”. One person when asked what made the service good replied, “It’s the staff, they’re excellent”. We observed staff demonstrating a good understanding of people’s needs and how to meet them.

People told us they felt safe when receiving care and were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. Comments from people included, “We’re as safe as houses here – the staff are very good” and “I feel safe here. No one bothers me and the staff will help out if I need them”.

Staff understood the needs of the people they were providing care for. People told us staff provided care with kindness and compassion.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled. They received a thorough induction when they started working at the home. They demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training relevant to their role.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People had regular group and individual meetings to provide feedback about their care and there was an effective complaints procedure. One person told us, “I would speak to (the registered manager) if I had any concerns. She would sort it out”.

The provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care provided at Buckland Court. Feedback was encouraged and was used to make improvements to the service.

8 December 2015

During a routine inspection

OSJCT Buckland Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 50 older people. At the time of our inspection 48 people were living at Buckland Court. The home was last inspected in May 2013 and was found to be meeting all of the standards assessed.

This inspection took place on 8 December 2015 and was unannounced. We returned on 9 December 2015 to complete the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider’s systems for gaining and recording consent for care and treatment were not always followed by staff. This meant it was not possible to say whether these people consented to the care and treatment they were receiving, or if they did not have capacity to consent to their care, that the Mental Capacity Act had been followed.

People who use the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff and management. Comments from people included, “ Staff treat us very well and come quickly when we call them ”, “This is the best place – I am very happy with the care provided” and “Everything is good here, the staff treat us very well”.

People told us they felt safe when receiving care and were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them.

Staff understood the needs of the people they were providing care for. People told us staff provided care with kindness and compassion.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled. They received a thorough induction when they started working at the home. They demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training relevant to their role, although the system to record training completed was not up to date. The registered manager was working to address this and prioritise refresher training for staff where it was needed.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People had regular group and individual meetings to provide feedback about their care and there was an effective complaints procedure. One person told us, “We would speak to (the registered manager) if there was anything we were not happy about – she would sort it out ”.

The provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care provided at Buckland Court. Feedback was encouraged and was used to make improvements to the service.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

20 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us staff respected them and encouraged their independence. We observed staff supported people appropriately, maintaining their dignity, including on the dementia care unit.

People said care workers met their needs. One person told us 'they are very good, they look after you really well here.' A relative told us the care provided was the same, whatever the time of or day of the week they visited. An external healthcare professional described the staff as 'very thorough' in how they provided care.

We saw the home was clean throughout. A relative described how it was 'always kept clean and tidy.' We saw staff followed the provider's policies on infection control. The provider performed regular audits on standards of infection control and hygiene, taking action if issues were identified.

Staff told us they were trained and supported in their roles. A new member of staff described how 'I settled in straight away' because of the training and support they had been given.

The home had a system to enable people to raise complaints and concerns. Complaints and concerns were documented, including actions taken to address matters identified.

19 December 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they received good care and were respected by staff. One person said 'they really care here' and another 'you get care here, night or day'. A person with a disability told us staff encouraged them in being as independent as possible. We saw care workers looked after people in a safe manner, including when they needed assistance with moving. Staff addressed all people in a respectful and supportive way.

Staff received training and support in a wide range of areas, including safeguarding vulnerable people. One member of staff said 'there's lots of training' and another told us about the 'copious amounts of training.'

The provider had systems for audit of their service. Where matters were identified, action was taken to address such deficits. People told us they felt able to bring up issues with the home manager and felt appropriate action would be taken. One person told us 'I'd take it right to the top if I needed to', if they didn't like something.

People who were frail, including people at risk of pressure ulcers and dehydration were not consistently supported in the way they needed. This could put them at risk. Where people had dementia or had specific care requests, records were not consistently maintained to ensure interventions by staff happened in the person's best interests.