Shaftesbury John Grooms Court

Updated 16 April 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 18 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 16 April 2021

About the service

Livability John Grooms Court is a ‘care home’ providing personal care for people with physical, neurological and/or learning disabilities. The home accommodates up to 29 people in one adapted building. Each person has their own self-contained flat with kitchen and en-suite bathroom. There are also communal living room, dining room and kitchen facilities. At the time of inspection 22 people were being supported in the service.

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

Since the last inspection the service had focussed on improving the management of medicines and the assessment of risks and the environment. Auditing processes were improved and there was a change in management culture.

People told us they felt safe in the service. Individual risks to people had been assessed and staff understood what action to take to manage them. There were enough staff to support people although the service was still reliant on agency. Agency staff had a good induction to the service and were familiar with people’s needs. The management of people’s medicines had improved and there were robust systems in place to make sure people received their medicines as they were prescribed.

People’s needs were holistically assessed. Staff told us they found the one page profile for each person which was in their rooms particularly helpful to get to know people. A new chef had recently been appointed which people were positive about. They told us they liked the food, and peoples people’s dietary requirements were catered for. The service worked with healthcare professionals to ensure they had access to health professionals when required. Key workers were responsible for ensuring people were supported at appointments and that any advice was followed after the visit. The premises were adapted to people’s needs and was fully accessible throughout. The provider had a plan for refurbishment in some areas where walls and floors were marked. 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 interests; the policies and systems in the service supported practice.

People told us the staff were caring. Staff knew people well and chatted to them while they were providing support. People were involved in their care and preferences; likes and dislikes were recorded in care plans. Staff understood how to maintain privacy and dignity. People were supported to be independent and to go out in the community. The managers told us they were working to promote people’s independent living skills.

The service was responsive to people’s individual needs. Each person was allocated a keyworker who they met monthly to review their care and ensure their needs were being met. An activities worker organised a programme of activities supported by volunteers that included activities within the home as well as in the local community. The service provided end of life care and records were being reviewed as part of the review of all care plans. The service was in the process of completing accreditation in end of life care. We made a recommendation about reviewing people’s end of life care plans.

There had also been changes in management which had caused disruption in the service. The managers were aware of this and working to create a more positive culture in the service. More work was needed on care plans to ensure they were consistent and provided all the information about people’s care needs.

The service had appointed leads to work on areas of improvement including medicine management and management of the environment. This had brought about positive change in these areas. There was an improvement in the systems and processes for monitoring when things went wrong and acting to prevent it happening again in the future. There were also systems for making sure this was reported to the appropriate authorities where necessary.

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

Rating at last inspection (and update): The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 14 December 2018) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Livability John Grooms Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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.