We carried out a review of the data available to us about Shaftesbury New Court Place 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 Shaftesbury New Court Place, you can give feedback on this service.
Livability New Court Place is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 24 people with a physical disability. Some people had additional health needs and/or learning disability. On the day of our inspection, 21 people were using the service.
The service had been developed in line with most of the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.
The service was larger than current best practice guidance and had the appearance of a care home. However, the service had been designed to meet the needs of people with physical disabilities. This included wide corridors, large open spaces and adapted environments (such as adjustable height surfaces). The size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the personalised care provided. Both the people and relatives we spoke to were positive about the quality of care at the service. People had opportunities to feed back about the service and take part in activities they enjoyed. People were encouraged to personalise their rooms.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
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 this practice. People told us that they were well supported and that their independence was encouraged. We saw a range of activities on offer and people had the opportunity to feedback on the service provided.
People were safe at the service and there were enough staff to meet their support needs. Staff had received all necessary training and had a good understanding of people’s needs.
People’s needs were fully assessed. Detailed support plans were in place and reviewed regularly. Risks were managed appropriately. People were supported to manage their medicines safely.
The environment was clean and fully adapted to meet people’s needs.
People were supported to eat and drink, in line with their individual needs. The service worked well with other professionals to ensure people received the right support.
People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People were supported to communicate their wishes and make decisions. Staff were knowledgeable about the most effective methods to support people to communicate.
The provider had quality assurance systems in place. The management team had effective oversight of the service and staff felt well supported in their role.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
At our last inspection, the service was rated Good (published 19 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in May 2015 the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People told us they felt safe living in New Court Place. Risks to people were appropriately assessed and managed.
People told us there were enough staff with the skills and experience to provide them with appropriate care and support when they needed it.
Staff had received appropriate training, and support to help them to carry out their roles effectively.
People received appropriate support to eat and drink sufficient amount to help them stay healthy and hydrated.
People were asked for their consent and the service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives and staff supported them to remain as independent as possible.
People told us and we observed that people were cared for by staff who were kind and caring in their approach and who respected their privacy and maintained their dignity.
People were asked to provide feedback about their experience of the service and their feedback and suggestions were taken into account.
People received personalised care that met their individual needs. People were given appropriate support and encouragement to access meaningful activities and participate in things that they were interested in.
People told us they knew how to complain and were confident they would be listened to if they wished to make a complaint.
The managers and staff operated in an open, transparent and inclusive way. Feedback from people visitors and staff was all positive.
There were quality assurance systems in place including regular audits and checks to make sure if any shortfalls were identified they were quickly addressed to improve the service.
We undertook an unannounced inspection of New court place on 6 May 2015. New Court Place provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 24 people with physical disabilities. Some people also have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people living in the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 kept safe and free from harm. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service. Staff were aware of people’s choices and provided people with support in a personalised way.
The provider had a robust recruitment process in place which ensured that qualified and experienced staff were employed at the home. Staff received an induction and on-going training, support and received supervision from their manager. Staff were aware of their responsibilities when providing care and support to people at the service.
Detailed plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People were involved in making decisions about their care or, where they were unable to, the staff involved the person’s family or representative with any decision making. All care was reviewed regularly with the person or their family.
People were supported to eat and drink well and were supported to access healthcare professionals as they were required. Staff were responsive to people’s changing needs and made appropriate referrals to other professionals when required.
Medicines were administered by nurses; they were the only staff who had received training on the safe administration of medicines.
Below is a summary of what we found.
The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with said that they felt safe and were happy living at New Court Place. One person said 'The staff know what I can do and what I can't do. If I need something, staff help me.' People and their relatives had been involved in the decisions relating to the care and support they received. People's privacy and dignity had been respected and their independence promoted. Their need needs had been assessed and met appropriately. People received their medicines regularly and on time. People's mental capacity assessment had been carried out but no application for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (Dols) had needed to be submitted. This meant that people's human rights had been safeguarded as required.
Is the service effective?
People's needs had been assessed, reviewed and met appropriately. They and their relatives had been involved in the decisions about their care and support. However, they had not signed to indicate their agreement to the care they received. Their risks had been assessed, identified and a management plan put in place to mitigate any risks. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Care needs had been reviewed on a regular basis and any changes had been reflected in their care plan.
Not all staff had completed the mandatory and other relevant training. They had not received regular supervision. This meant that people did not always received care from staff whose work had been appraised or who had been trained for the work they performed.
Is the service caring?
People we spoke with said that the staff were caring and helpful. One parent said 'Staff are very good. My daughter is being well looked after. It takes a great weight out of our minds, knowing that she is here safe and well cared for.' Another parent said 'staff are absolutely wonderful. There is always someone to support the people. I have no concerns.'
The care plans demonstrated that people's need were met appropriately. People had been supported in a variety of activities of their choice and had been provided with a well-balanced and nutritious meals.
Is the service responsive?
The people we spoke with said that they had a variety of activities they participated in. They said they were supported to go shopping, outings and attend to appointments with the help of a dedicated mini bus to assist with transport. People had an activity plan which they had been supported to join in either in the local community or in the care home.
People were aware of how to make a complaint but they said they would raise their concerns with the staff or discuss it in their meetings with the manager.
Is the service well-led?
The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service. Regular checks and audits had been carried out to ensure that people were cared for in a safe and comfortable environment. People's needs had been assessed, reviewed and met appropriately. However, their views had not been sought about the quality of service although they have regular meetings to discuss current issues and concerns.
During this visit, we found that although the provider had made some progress to achieve compliance, there remained some shortfalls in the management of medicines. We also found that the risk assessments had not been kept up to date and the audit systems which the provider had put in place were ineffective.
The people we spoke with told us that they 'like being here', and that they 'wouldn't swap this place for anything'. We observed that people were able to move around the home freely. However, there was little staff interaction with people in the communal areas and that there were very little activities for people to do on the day of our inspection.
We found that people and their relatives had given their consent to care and treatment and that there was an effective recruitment procedure in place to ensure that staff employed at the care home had the qualifications, skills and experience for the work they did. However, we found that people did not experience care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We also found that people were not protected against the risks associated with unsafe use and management of medicines.
When asked about choices and activities, a person remarked, 'It's a very good service. There are choices of meals and activities. The staff treat me well.' Another person said that the activities included 'parties, computer games and trips out' which had included attending a rugby match.