Archived: Maybury Court Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The service had signage displayed on the main entrance to alert visitors to restrictions on entering the building. Sanitising hand gel was provided in the entrance and staff ensured professional visitors were wearing appropriate personal, protective equipment.

¿ Currently, there were no visits to the service. Previously, visits were arranged in line with government guidance and facilities were available to accommodate visits during winter. Family visitors completed and signed a form on entry for contact and tracing arrangements, and to confirm they did not have any symptoms of COVID-19. Families were kept up to date with visiting arrangements.

¿ People were supported to join in activities to maintain their wellbeing. Measures were in place to ensure they kept in touch with family and friends. Staff supported social distancing arrangements in communal areas.

¿ There were good systems of testing for COVID-19 for people and staff. Appropriate measures were in place when people were admitted to the service to ensure they, and other people, remained safe. For example, the care manager told us they would only accept people who were able to isolate for 14 days.

¿ Staff wore PPE in line with government guidance and designated areas were set up within the service for staff to remove and apply PPE.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Maybury Court Residential Home provides support for up to 28 older people in one adapted building. Twenty-eight people were receiving a service at the time of this inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We received very positive views from people about the support provided to them. People said they felt safe and staff were respectful.

Some risks had not been assessed or were not being managed. Immediately upon identifying these concerns the management team took action to address them.

Staff had positive links with health care professionals, which promoted people’s wellbeing. We made a recommendation about medication administration and ‘as and when required’ protocols.

Care and support were tailored to each person's needs and preferences. People and their relatives were fully involved in developing and updating their planned care.

Staff had received training and support to enable them to carry out their role. We made a recommendation about training and competency assessments to ensure training was embedded in practice. Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work in the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interest; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager and care manager led by example to ensure people received a good service. People and staff told us the management team were approachable and listened to them when they had any concerns. All feedback was used to make continuous improvements to the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 03 January 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The service is required to and did have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

We undertook this unannounced inspection on the 25 November and 2 December 2016. The last full inspection took place on 14 and 15 May 2015 and we had minor concerns with the notification of incidents, risk assessing and the addressing of shortfalls in the environment. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

Risks to people's safety had been assessed and staff managed risks in line with individual assessments. Support plans were regularly reviewed, detailed and organised. We found people's health and nutritional needs were met. Staff contacted community health care professionals when required and supported people to visit hospital appointments. The meals provided to people were varied and choices were available. There were special diets for some people as required. Dieticians were contacted for advice and treatment when people lost weight or there were concerns about their food and fluid intake.

People told us they felt safe, were well looked after, happy and would inform staff if they were concerned about abuse. People were cared for by staff who had received training in how to protect them from harm. Staff understood they had a duty to report abuse and protect people from harm and they told us they felt confident to discuss any safeguarding concerns with the managers at the service.

Safety equipment, electrical appliances and gas safety were all checked regularly.

An analysis of all accidents and incidents was undertaken by the care manager to identify any trends or patterns. This meant people’s needs could be reassessed or more training could be provided if any issues were identified. People’s medicines were stored and administered safely.

We found staff supported people to make their own decisions. When people lacked capacity for this, staff acted within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensured important decisions were made within best interest meetings with relevant people present.

People were involved with initial assessment and reviews of their care and support. Their levels of independence, individual strengths and abilities were recorded. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with important people in their lives and to take part in activities.

We found there was sufficient staff on duty to support people with their assessed needs. Staff provided people with information and spoke with them in a patient way. People's privacy and dignity was respected and their confidential information was held securely.

Staff had access to training which helped them to feel skilled and confident when supporting people who used the service. The training was monitored and refresher courses made available. Their competence was checked to make sure the training was effective. Staff received supervision, appraisal and support.

The registered manager/provider understood their responsibilities to report accidents, incidents and other notifiable incidents to the CQC as required. The service had a quality monitoring system in place, which ensured that checks were made and people were able to express their views. The registered manager/provider and the care manager were approachable and people who used the service and their relatives were listened to and their views taken seriously so practice could be improved. Meetings were held with staff and people who used the service to ensure their views were known and could be acted upon. There was a complaints procedure on display and people felt able to complain.

People's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. People and relatives we spoke with confirmed staff wore gloves and washed their hands when providing care.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. People we spoke with told us they received good care and the staff were kind and friendly. We spoke with five people. One person told us 'There are sufficient staff here to cater for our needs.' Another person said 'When I use my call bell I do not have to wait a long time.'

People were given support by the provider to make a comment or complaint where they needed assistance. People we spoke with confirmed they could raise any concerns with staff and these would be acted on.

People told us they felt safe in the home. They also said they liked their room and the home was clean and tidy.

During our visit we also spoke with two visiting relatives and two health and social care professionals who all confirmed the home offered a good level of care and support.

We saw from documentation that people had their needs assessed and were involved in the planning of their care. We observed that incidents were recorded, however they were not always reported to the appropriate agency and this may place people at risk of abuse.

We looked at training records which showed us staff had not undertaken or updated their skills and knowledge in a variety of areas such as safeguarding adults from abuse, moving and handling, first aid and other essential training that would promote peoples' welfare, health and safety.

We saw the home sought the views of the people who lived there.