We carried out a review of the data available to us about Edina Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Edina Court, you can give feedback on this service.
This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service. The service also provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults, people with sensory impairments and people with a physical disability.
Edina Court is a two-storey building and the upper floor is accessible with a passenger lift and stairs. Not everyone using Edina Court receives personal care; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
At the time of our inspection there were 14 people using the service.
People continued to receive a safe service from staff who understood safeguarding and incident reporting procedures. Sufficient and safely recruited staff were in post and they had the necessary skill mix to support people safely. Medicines were administered as prescribed by trained and competent staff.
People continued to receive a service that was effective that met their needs by staff who had the relevant training to meet these needs. People ate and drank healthily. Staff enabled people to access healthcare services. Staff supported people to make decisions and respected these.
People continued to receive a service that was kind, sincere, compassionate and caring. Staff knew people well, listened to what they said and acted accordingly. Staff respected people's privacy and upheld their dignity.
People's needs were responded to by staff who made a difference to their independence. People's complaints were satisfactorily responded to and acted on. Systems were in place should people need support at the end of their lives.
The service was well-led by a registered manager who supported the staff team to be open and honest. People had a say in how the service was run. The registered manager worked well with others involved in people's care. The provider ensured that we were told about important events. Staff knew what standard of care was expected from them and they upheld the provider's values for this.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This unannounced inspection took place on 8 June 2016.
The scheme had 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.
People were protected from harm because staff had been trained and were knowledgeable. Staff were aware about those organisations they needed to contact should any incident of harm be suspected or occur.
Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out comprehensive and satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were well supported by the registered manager and senior staff through supervisions and staff meetings. People’s care and support needs were met by a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff.
Only those staff who had been trained, and deemed competent, were authorised to administer people’s medicines. People’s medicines were administered and managed safely.
Up-to-date risk assessments were in place and these were reviewed regularly to help ensure that risks to people were managed effectively. Accidents and incidents were investigated and acted upon to minimise any potential for recurrence.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The scheme’s registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about when an assessment of people’s mental capacity was required. Staff were aware of the circumstances and conditions when an application to lawfully deprive any person of their liberty was required. Nobody using the scheme lacked capacity and needed to be deprived of their liberty in a lawful way.
Staff were mentored, coached and supported in their role with regular supervision to develop new, and enhance current, skills.
Each person was provided with the care and support they needed and staff respected the person’s independent living skills. Care was provided with compassion and in consideration of people’s preferences.
People‘s relatives, representatives, care staff, health care professionals and social workers contributed to people’s assessment of their care needs. People were involved in their care planning as much as practicable.
People’s health and nutritional needed were met. People at an increased risk of poor health or nutrition were supported by the most appropriate health care professionals including speech and language therapist, physiotherapist and chiropodist. Staff adhered to the advice and guidance provided by health care professionals.
The registered manager was proactive in taking action to prevent the potential for any recurrences in concerns people had raised. Staff knew how to support people to make suggestions and comments about the quality of care people received.
The provider and registered manager had audits and quality assurance procedures in place and these were effective. These audits were used as a means to drive improvements.
This unannounced inspection took place on the 16 June 2015. At our previous inspection in June 2014 we found the provider was not meeting two of the standards we assessed. This was in relation to the care and welfare of people and support to staff. The provider told us they would make the necessary improvements by 30 September 2014. At this inspection of 16 June 2015 we found that some, but not all, necessary improvements had been made.
Edina Court is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people who live at Edina Court extra care scheme. At the time of this inspection the service provided 18 people with care.
The scheme had a registered manager in post but at the time of our inspection they were on leave. They had been registered since 2012. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the scheme. 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 scheme is run.
The provider’s recruitment process ensured that only staff deemed suitable to work with people were offered employment. Records viewed showed us that staff were only employed after all essential safety checks had been satisfactorily completed.
Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from harm. They were knowledge about the safeguarding adults recording and reporting procedures. Staff had been trained in medicines administration and had their competency regularly assessed.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that people who used the service had their capacity to make day-to-day decisions formally assessed. At the time of our inspection no one in receipt of care had been deprived of their liberty.
People’s needs were assessed and this information was used when compiling each person’s care plan. This enabled staff to support people in a consistent way. However, not all risks had been identified. This meant that there was a risk that people’s care needs would not be managed safely.
People’s privacy and dignity was consistently respected by all staff. Staff had obtained a valid consent from each person before any care or support was provided.
The provider had a complaints procedure in place which people had access to including advocacy support if this was required.
The provider had arrangements and systems in place to assess the quality of care it provided. However, these were not always effective in identifying the issues we found.
We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
People who we spoke with told us that they felt safe and they liked the staff. One person said, 'I like it here. The staff are nice.' In five out of the six care records we looked at, assessments of any potential risks to people had been carried out and measures put in place to reduce the risks. For one person their care records had not included a risk assessment for a significant risk. This meant that in this instance the person was not protected from the risk of harm.
People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff showed that they had received training and were clear about their responsibilities to recognise and report any concerns.
The provider had a system in place to demonstrate that they had given consideration to whether each person using the service had the capacity to make decisions about their day to day care under the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The Mental Capacity Act is a law which requires an assessment to be made to determine whether a person can make a specific decision at the time it needs to be made. It also requires that any decision made on someone's behalf is recorded, including the reasons why it has been made, how the person's wishes have affected the decision and how they were involved in the decision making process.
There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. In the majority of records we looked at appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.
Staffing levels were adequate to meet the needs of people who used the service during the day time. However we were informed that there was only one member of staff on duty during the night time. This meant that people who used the service may be at risk in the event of fire or other emergencies.
Is the service effective?
People we spoke with told us, and our observations confirmed, that people were happy with the service they received at Edina Court. Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed their job. It was clear from our observations, and from our conversations with staff and the manager, that staff knew people's needs well.
People living with dementia were well supported by the staff. Staff supported people who used the service to be independent and to be able to make choices.
Support plans in people's care records gave staff detailed guidance about the ways in which each person preferred to be supported. Staff worked closely with professional health staff to ensure that people's needs were met by staff with the most appropriate, knowledge, skills and experience.
Is the service caring?
One of the staff we spoke with said, 'I really enjoy working here.' We observed that people's concerns were listened to. Staff spoke to people who used the service in a respectful and kind way. When staff told us how they supported people they spoke sensitively about each person's needs. We heard how they encouraged people to be independent. One person who used the service said, 'The staff are kind.' Another person said, 'They look after me very well here.'
Is the service responsive?
People's care and support needs were regularly assessed by the management team and the staff at the service. Support plans included people's preferences to ensure that care and support were provided in a way they wanted them to be. We saw that when people's health needs and nutritional health needs changed, staff were able to able to respond to their needs and ensure an appropriate response.
We saw that staff understood how to support people to ensure they ate a healthy and nutritious diet. They were able to encourage people living with dementia to eat well. They knew how to support people who had specific health related nutritional needs.
People we spoke with said they were confident to raise any concerns or complaints they had with the manager.
Is the service well led?
Staff told us they felt well supported by the manager. One person said, 'The manager is firm but fair. They are approachable and you get a positive response from them.'
The staff we spoke with told us they were trained to do their job. The majority of staff received regular supervision. Some staff had not received regular supervision. Staff had not received appraisals. This meant that staff employed at the service had not received appropriate professional development.
People we spoke with who used the service told us they felt the service was well-managed. The provider had effective quality assurance and audit systems in place to monitor all aspects of the service and ensure improvements were made where necessary.
Staff we spoke with were able to tell us the process for supporting people to take their medication and what they would do if an error occurred.
Staff were able to receive additional training relevant to their role. One person told us, "Staff are lovely".
The provider had in place systems to monitor and assess the quality of their service. Staff told us monthly meetings were held which also discussed complaints and incidents.
People also told us that staff actively consulted them about their day-to-day support and care. The people said that their support and care needs were met although they said that there could be enough staff on duty. One person said that they would have liked to have had an increase in the time the staff supported them during their evening visit, so that they did not feel, "Rushed". Another person said that, in their view, the staff experienced, "A bit of a bustle", when working. However, the people we spoke with said that the staff attended to their support and care needs at the time they chose.
People told us that they felt, "Safe" living at the service. This was because the way the staff treated them. We were told that staff treated them with kindness and valued their privacy and dignity.
People told us that they felt staff were skilled and knowledgeable to do their job.
All of the people we spoke with said that they had no reservations in speaking with the manager if they wanted to make a suggestion, concern or complaint about the standard of support and care that they received. However, they said that they were happy living at the scheme and had no current concerns about the service.
The person said they would be able to speak with someone if they were not happy, although this had never been the case. They confirmed they received care at the time they expect and that staff members were always prompt.