Background to this inspection
Updated
30 July 2016
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 inspection took place on 07 July May 2016 and was unannounced.
The inspection team consisted of one inspector.
We reviewed information we held about the service. We looked at our own system to see if we had received any concerns or compliments about the home. We analysed information on statutory notifications we had received from the provider. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.
We asked the local authority, Healthwatch and the clinical commissioning group for any information they had which would aid our inspection. We used this information to help plan our inspection.
Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
We spoke with five people receiving support, four relatives, the manager, five care staff members, and the cook. We viewed the care and support plans for two people, including assessments of risk and records of medicines and healthcare provision. We saw records of quality checks completed by the provider and incident and accident records.
Updated
30 July 2016
This inspection took place on 07 July 2016 and was unannounced.
Probert Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 25 people. At this inspection 15 were staying there. Probert Court provides short term placements for people leaving hospital before they either move back to their homes or to another location. The anticipated average stay for people at Probert Court is six weeks.
A manager was in post and present during our inspection. The manager was newly appointed and commenced work at Probert Court six weeks prior to this inspection. We confirmed that they had submitted appropriate applications to become the 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.
People were safe as staff had been trained and understood how to support people in a way that protected them from danger, harm and abuse. People had the risks associated with their care assessed and staff knew what to do to minimise the risk of harm. The manager undertook investigations into any incidents or accidents to identify learning and to reduce the possibility of reoccurrence.
There were enough staff to support people and to meet their needs. The manager had systems in place to ensure additional support was provided to meet people’s needs. The provider completed appropriate checks on staff before they started work to ensure they were safe to work with people.
People received their medicines from staff who were trained to safely administer these and who made sure they had their medicine when they needed it. The management team completed checks to ensure staff followed safe practice when assisting people with their medicines.
People received care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff attended training that was relevant to the people they supported. Staff were supported by the provider and the manager who promoted an open and transparent culture. Staff received regular one on one support sessions where they could discuss aspects of their work and identify any improvements if needed.
Staff provided care and support which was personalised and respected people’s likes and dislikes. People felt involved in the day to day running of Probert Court. People’s independence was encouraged and staff respected their privacy and dignity.
People were supported by staff who knew them well and had good relationships with them. Staff made sure people were involved in their own care and information was given to them in a way they could understand. People were involved in decisions about their day to day care. When people could not make decisions for themselves, staff understood the steps they needed to follow to ensure people’s rights were upheld.
The provider met people’s cultural needs by ensuring there were staff available that was able to speak their first language. Dietary requirements for health or culture were provided for and the catering team worked with people to ensure they adhered to their beliefs and wishes.
People, relatives and staff felt able to express their views and felt their contributions mattered. The provider and manager undertook regular quality checks in order to drive improvements.