The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Probert Court Nursing Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Probert Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV10 6UF (01902) 444067

Provided and run by:
Heantun Care Housing Association Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

7 July 2016

During a routine inspection

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.

14 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who lived at the home and four visiting relatives. We observed how care was provided to people, looked at three people's records. We also spoke with two members of staff and the registered manager. We also looked at other records related to the management of the home.

People and visitors we spoke with expressed satisfaction with the care and support that staff provided to people. We saw people were provided with care and support as set out in their care plans. One person told us, 'Press the buzzer and they (staff) come to you ' quick'. Another person said, 'I'm Independent but help is there if needed'.

We saw people were protected from the risk of infection because there were systems in place to ensure a clean, hygienic environment was maintained.

We saw that the provider carried out suitable checks to make sure staff were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

We saw that the provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of service. One relative told us, 'Ask for something and they jump on it, systems are excellent'.

22 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that where people had capacity their consent for care and treatment was obtained. One person who used the service said, 'Oh yes, I tell the staff how I like things to be done and they do it.'

We spoke with three people and a visiting relative who confirmed they were satisfied with the service provided. Care records contained a care plan that provided staff with relevant information about people's care needs and how to meet them.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of people's medicines and staff had received appropriate training to assist people to take their medicines safely.

A staff training programme showed that staff had access to regular on going training to ensure they had the skills and competence to deliver an efficient service.

We observed that people had access to a complaints procedure, one visiting relative said, 'I've never had to complain about anything but I would be happy to go to the manager if I had any concerns.'

27 March 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited Probert Court on 27 March 2012 to carry out a planned review of compliance. We looked at the information we had about the service before we visited.

We spoke to three people that used the service, two visiting relatives, three staff and the registered manager. We also looked at three people's care records and other records associated with the operation of the service. We also looked at information that the provider has received about what people thought of Probert Court.

People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. We heard from people and their relatives that staff supported their independence and privacy.

People we spoke with told us that there were involved in the planning of their relative's care through regular updates from staff and meetings about the care that staff provided. Another person we spoke to said that they had received information about aspects of their care but it would have been helpful if discussed at greater length, with written information made easier to understand, and based on their needs.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The care we saw provided was consistent with what was written in care plans.

We saw that there was detailed information recorded about people's needs in assessments. Where there had been some compromise to information available to the home before admissions we saw the manager had responded to this to ensure there was improvement.

People we spoke with told us that the care they received was good. We heard that staff 'Don't hang about, if you're in trouble soon with you' and 'Best care could possibly have'. We heard from people and their relatives that there was prompt follow up to health care needs with regular follow up by the GP. The one exception to this was follow up for dental care for people who were at the home on a short term basis, this mentioned by one person we spoke to. The person did tell us staff had not been made aware of this need. We saw people living at the home appeared content and looked well presented.

We saw numerous letters from relatives and these highlighted that people had been satisfied with the care they had received. They said about the relative 'She could not have had better care', 'We are truly grateful for the excellent quality of care' and they were 'Well looked after'.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We spoke to two people and a relative about whether they felt they were safe. We heard that people were confident that they would be protected and that any issues they raised would be 'sorted out'. People told us that they have information about concerns in writing (these we saw had been signed for).

One relative told us 'Husband is safe ' know he is well looked after'

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. People told us that they were happy with the environment that they lived in and that the bedrooms suited their needs.

We made the manager aware that the availability and positioning of alarm calls in some parts of the building would benefit from review. This was a matter the manager was considering at the time we visited.

People were cared for by staff that were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

People we spoke with told us that 'Staff know their jobs ', 'Staff are wonderful really lovely can't fault in any way always so happy to make patients happy'. They also told us that support provided was as needed and two people told us that staff presented as well trained.

Observation of the staff assisting people and communicating with them showed they did this in a way that was appropriate to individual needs. We saw that there were positive relationships between some staff and people living at the home. We saw people responding positively to staff.

People who use the service; their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted upon.

One relative we spoke with said they had attended relatives' meetings which used to happen 'quite a bit' and had completed survey forms. They told us they were they were 'involved in most everything that goes on' and 'can go to anytime and ask what want to know'. They told us the service had been consistently good over a number of years.

We saw comments from other relatives who said that their relative 'Could not have had better care', 'Grateful for the excellent quality of care' and 'Wonderful care'.

We saw the overview of the last survey the home had carried out of people's comments about the home and this indicated that there had been a high level of satisfaction with the service they received.