Archived: Selborne Court

Updated 23 February 2019

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 10 and 11 January 2019 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

We reviewed the information we held about the home which included information on statutory notifications received from the provider. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law such as accidents and incidents in the home. We looked at information received from agencies involved in people’s care. There had been no concerns received by any agencies.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). We used information the provider sent us in the PIR. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at two people’s care records. We also viewed other care documentation including daily records of care and medicine records. We looked at staff handover records, duty rotas, complaints records, and accidents and incident records. We completed observations in the lounge and dining room area during the day and completed a tour of the home to check the environment was clean, safe and suitable for people.

We spoke with five people, three staff members and the registered manager.

Updated 23 February 2019

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Selborne Court on 10 and 11 January 2019.

Selborne Court is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates up to 20 older people in one adapted building. There were 17 people living at the home when we visited.

A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have 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. A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection.

At our previous inspection on 24 October 2017 we found the provider was not meeting the required standards. The provider had not fully implemented systems and processes to monitor the quality and safety of the service to drive improvement within the home. People did not always receive care and support in accordance with their wishes and we identified risks to people’s safety. There was a breach of the legal requirements and improvements were needed across the service. We rated the three key questions of ‘Safe’, ‘Responsive’ and ‘Well Led’ as ‘Requires improvement’.

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

Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve. During this inspection visit we checked action taken. Sufficient improvement had been made to address the breach in the regulations and the key questions of ‘Safe’ and ‘Responsive’. Action was in progress to fully address improvement within the key question of well led. We rated the service to be ‘Good’ overall.

Quality monitoring systems had been introduced or improved to gather people’s views and drive improvement of the home. The provider had undertaken some meetings with people and staff. Audit processes had improved following the last inspection but some records did not demonstrate risks were managed well. This included recruitment records, medicine records, accident and incident analysis and health and safety records.

People has access to some social activities which they enjoyed and their religious needs were supported as appropriate. In response to people's feedback a new staff member was being recruited to increase social activity opportunities.

Staff had completed training to make sure they knew how to support people safely and people felt safe were suitably trained. Staff felt confident in their roles and understood their responsibilities. They had regular supervision meetings with the registered manager to assess any ongoing training and development needs.

People felt safe living at Selbourne Court and the atmosphere was relaxed and homely. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. Staff knew people well and knew how to manage risks to keep people safe. No safeguarding incidents had occurred since our last inspection. People knew who to speak with if they had any concerns. When concerns had been raised, they had been investigated and responded to.

The home was clean, and staff understood what was required of them to maintain good infection control within the home.

People were happy living at Selborne Court and were happy with the staff, care, and support they received. People were encouraged to have choice and control of their lives and to make decisions about their care. Staff treated people with kindness and knew what was important and mattered to them including supporting them with their independence.

Staff gained consent before supporting people and respected people’s dignity and right to privacy. People enjoyed the meals provided.

People told us they could access a doctor if they needed one and records confirmed health professionals were contacted promptly when concerns were identified.

People received their medicines as prescribed by suitably trained staff.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in regard to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate applications had been made to deprive people of their liberty where this was in their best interests. People and staff described the registered manager as approachable and supportive. The registered manager knew people well.

Staff enjoyed working at the home and felt supported by the registered manager and the provider. Most staff had worked at the home for a number of years so people experienced a consistent staff team who knew people well. Staff referred to the service as being like ‘family’.