Archived: St Armands Court

Updated 21 June 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 checked 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.

We inspected the service on 29 March 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors.

Before the inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about the service. This included information we received from safeguarding and statutory notifications since the last inspection. We also sought feedback from the commissioners of the service prior to our visit.

The registered provider was not asked to complete 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.

At the time of our inspection visit there were 35 people who used the service. We spent time with eight people. We spent time in the communal areas and observed how staff interacted with people and some people showed us their bedrooms.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, registered provider, four staff members, four family members and two visiting professionals.

During the inspection we reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records, including care planning documentation and medication records. We also looked at four staff files, including staff recruitment and training records, records relating to the management of the home and a variety of policies and procedures.

Updated 21 June 2016

We inspected St Armands Court on 29 March 2016. The inspection was unannounced. The service was last inspected in May 2014 and was found to be meeting the regulations inspected at that time.

St Armands Court is a large purpose built accommodation. The service provides care and support for up to 40 older people. The service is close to all local amenities.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were aware of action they should take if abuse was suspected.

Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety.

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed by staff and records of these assessments had been reviewed. Peoples care plans were written in a way that instructed staff to know what people’s needs were. The staff knew more detail about people than was recorded in care plans and the registered manager was working to ensure this detail was recorded.

We saw people’s care plans were not always person centred and written in a way to describe how people would like their care to be delivered. They did however describe the tasks staff needed to do to care for them. These were regularly evaluated, reviewed and updated. We saw evidence to demonstrate people were involved in all aspects of their care plans.

We saw staff had received supervision on a regular basis and an annual appraisal. Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for.

People told us there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We found safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Systems in place to manage people’s medicines were overall appropriate and safe. The service did not have specific protocols in place for use of ‘as and when’ required medicines or prescribed creams.

There were positive interactions between people and staff. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect. People told us they were happy and felt very well cared for.

We saw people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks which helped to ensure their nutritional needs were met. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services.

People’s independence was encouraged and their hobbies and leisure interests were individually assessed. We saw there was a plentiful supply of activities which people told us they enjoyed.

The registered provider had a system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. People were regularly asked for their views.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw there were a range of audits carried out both by the registered provider, registered manager and senior staff within the organisation. We saw where issues had been identified there was not always action plans with agreed timescales in place.