The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Karelia Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Karelia Court, Sibelius Road, Hull, Humberside, HU4 7NQ (01482) 573232

Provided and run by:
Kingston upon Hull City Council

All Inspections

4 and 7 December 2015

During a routine inspection

Karelia Court is located in the West of Hull close to local shops and amenities, with easy access to public transport and community facilities.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. There were six people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

Accommodation is provided in a modern two storey building with eight single bedrooms, two lounges, a dining room with accessible kitchenette, central kitchen and two offices. Bathrooms are shared. The service has a garden and some designated off street parking to the front of the building.

The service has a registered manager. 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. There was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since December 2010.

We undertook this unannounced inspection took place on 4 and 7 December 2015. At the last inspection on 15 May 2014, the registered provider was compliant with all of the outcomes we assessed.

We found staff were recruited safely and there was sufficient staff to support people. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They knew what to do if they had concerns. There were policies and procedures available to guide them.

We found staff had a caring and professional approach and found ways to promote people’s independence, privacy and dignity. Staff provided information to people and included them in decisions about their support and care.

People who used the service had assessments of their needs undertaken which identified any potential risks to their safety. Staff had read the risk assessments and were aware of their responsibilities and the steps to take to minimise risk.

We found people’s health and nutritional needs were met and they accessed professional advice and treatment from community services when required. People who used the service received care in a person centred way with care plans describing their preferences for care and staff followed this guidance.

Staff had received training in legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Health Act 1983. They were aware of the need to gain consent when delivering care and support and what to do if people lacked capacity to agree to it. When people were assessed by staff as not having the capacity to make their own decisions, meetings were held with relevant others to discuss options and make decisions in the person’s best interest.

We found staff supported people with activities of daily living including access to community facilities and keeping in touch in family and friends.

Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and appraisal which supported them to feel skilled and confident when providing care to people. This included training considered essential by the registered provider and also specific training to meet the needs of people they supported.

There was a complaints process and information provided to people who used the service and staff in how to raise concerns directly with senior managers.

Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Training records showed staff had received training in the safe handling and administration of medicines.

People who used the service were seen to engage in a number of activities both within the service and the local community. They were encouraged to pursue hobbies, social interests and to go on holiday. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships with their families and friends.

Karelia Court is located in the West of Hull close to local shops and amenities, with easy access to public transport and community facilities.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. There were six people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

Accommodation is provided in a modern two storey building with eight single bedrooms, two lounges, a dining room with accessible kitchenette, central kitchen and two offices. Bathrooms are shared. The service has a garden and some designated off street parking to the front of the building.

The service has a registered manager. 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. There was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since December 2010.

We undertook this unannounced inspection took place on 4 and 7 December 2015. At the last inspection on 15 May 2014, the registered provider was compliant with all of the outcomes we assessed.

The people who used the service had complex needs and were not all able to tell us fully their experiences. We used a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to help us understand the experiences of the people who used the service. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand people who were unable to speak with us. We observed people being treated with dignity and respect and enjoying the interaction with staff. Staff knew how to communicate with people and involve them in how they were supported and cared for.

We found staff were recruited safely and there was sufficient staff to support people. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They knew what to do if they had concerns. There were policies and procedures available to guide them.

We found staff had a caring and professional approach and found ways to promote people’s independence, privacy and dignity. Staff provided information to people and included them in decisions about their support and care.

People who used the service had assessments of their needs undertaken which identified any potential risks to their safety. Staff had read the risk assessments and were aware of their responsibilities and the steps to take to minimise risk.

We found people’s health and nutritional needs were met and they accessed professional advice and treatment from community services when required. People who used the service received care in a person centred way with care plans describing their preferences for care and staff followed this guidance.

Staff had received training in legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Health Act 1983. They were aware of the need to gain consent when delivering care and support and what to do if people lacked capacity to agree to it. When people were assessed by staff as not having the capacity to make their own decisions, meetings were held with relevant others to discuss options and make decisions in the person’s best interest.

We found staff supported people with activities of daily living including access to community facilities and keeping in touch in family and friends.

Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and appraisal which supported them to feel skilled and confident when providing care to people. This included training considered essential by the registered provider and also specific training to meet the needs of people they supported.

There was a complaints process and information provided to people who used the service and staff in how to raise concerns directly with senior managers.

Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Training records showed staff had received training in the safe handling and administration of medicines.

People who used the service were seen to engage in a number of activities both within the service and the local community. They were encouraged to pursue hobbies, social interests and to go on holiday. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships with their families and friends.

15 May 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out by one inspector over one day. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. Due to the complex needs of the people using the service we were unable to gain some people's views. Therefore we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. This included observing how staff supported people, speaking with staff and checking records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw people using the service were treated with respect and dignity by the staff who supported them. Care and support was delivered in a safe way by staff who had received appropriate training.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

We saw robust background checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work at the home to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The home was clean and generally fresh throughout. We found action was being taken to address a persistent mal odour in the hall. We saw there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. This legislation is used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people will be safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

We found people were encouraged to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. The staff we spoke with gave us good examples of how people were involved in making decisions about the care and support they received.

People's health and care needs were assessed on a regular basis. We saw people who used the service and their relatives had been involved in writing plans of care and these were reviewed and updated.

Staff had received appropriate professional development. We saw they had access to a varied training programme that helped them meet the needs of the people they supported.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind, caring and patient staff. We saw staff interacting with people positively.

Care files contained good levels of information about people's needs and preferences. This included the people important in their lives and their personal aims. We saw care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Satisfaction surveys and review meetings had been used to enable people to share their views on the service provided. This helped the provider to assess if people were receiving the care and support they needed.

Is the service responsive?

Care records demonstrated that when there had been changes in people's needs outside agencies had been involved to make sure they received the correct care and support. For example, one person was attending regular hospital outpatient appointments for a recent health issue.

Records showed people had access to a variety of social activities. During our visit we saw people going out into the community supported by staff or participating in stimulation at the service. Records showed activity provision had increased in recent weeks following the review and increase of staffing hours.

The service had a complaints procedure which was available to people who used and visited the service.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place to assess if the home was operating correctly. This included surveys and internal and external audits. We saw action plans were in place to address any shortfalls and progress was being made to address these.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We saw staff had access to policies and procedure to inform and guide them. Staff training and development needs had been assessed to enable the provider to arrange future training sessions.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

What people who used the service, and those that matter to them, said about the care and support they received: -

We completed observations of staff practice, as most people who used the service were not able to express their views about the service they received. We observed positive staff interactions with people and saw them support people and involve them in making decisions about their day to day care. This included such things as what they wanted for meals, music they wanted to listen to, where they wanted to spend time and the choice of activities.

We asked people who used the service about the activities they enjoyed, they told us, 'I like music' and 'Jigsaws.'

When we asked people who used the service about the staff, they told us they were, 'Nice' and 'Okay.'

People who used the service told us they were happy with their care and living at the service. One person told us, 'I'm happy here.'

23 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service including observing care practices. People who used the service had complex needs which meant some people were not able to tell us their experiences. We did speak with some people and they told us about what it was like living at Karelia Court and what activities they undertook.

Prior to undertaking the inspection visit we received concerns with regard to the medication procedure and errors that had occurred. We spoke with the local safeguarding team and they told us this was currently being investigated. We looked at the medication procedure and training for staff and found that improvements had been made.

We saw that people who used the service were involved with menu choice and we observed that some of the bedrooms had been personalised. One person told us, "I chose the colour and I like it." People also told us they went out and took part in activities and commented, "I like it here", "I go to pub" and "I go out on the bus."

During the inspection we observed staff interact with people who used the service, this was done in an inclusive and caring way. We also saw that essential training was planned for and undertaken by staff. However, we noticed that the service was providing one to one support for two people who used the service, following the inspection we were told the staffing levels had been increased with immediate effect.

23 July 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service including observing care practices. People who used the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

We saw that since the previous inspection the service had improved the way information was recorded and communicated, this ensured that staff were informed of changes to people's needs.

We also saw that choice was offered to people as individual bedrooms had been personalised. Positive comments had been received from other professionals involved and stated that, 'End of life care provided had been inspirational and the care was very good.'

During the visit we observed staff interact with people who used the service, this was carried out in a caring way and it clear was that positive relationships had been developed.

23 April 2012

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak to people using the service because during our visit the home was subject to some refurbishment and this meant that people were taking part in more community based activity than usual. We were also aware that the disruption to the service may have impacted upon the people who used the service and we did not want to increase their anxieties.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service including observing care practices. People who used the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

Throughout our visit, we observed staff interacting and offering support to people. This was carried out in a caring and empathic way. People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted.

We saw that choice was offered to people using picture menus, individualised activity planning sheets and person centred planning. Staff spoke to and engaged positively with people using the service.

Prior to our visit we spoke with the local authority contracting and commissioning department, who told us they had not carried out a monitoring visit to the home.