We carried out a review of the data available to us about St James 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 St James Court, you can give feedback on this service.
St James Court is registered to provide support with personal care. The main office is based within a supported living scheme of 12 flats. At the time of the inspection the service provided care and support to thirteen people who lived at the scheme.
At the last inspection undertaken on 8 June 2015 the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.
We received positive feedback from people, their relatives. People told us they had developed a good working relationship with the staff. Comments included “They [staff] are very good,” “They [staff] will do anything to help.” One relative commented “I could not manage without them.” Another relative told us how happy they had been since their family member had moved into the scheme. “I am really happy with the service provided, what’s really nice is how easy the staff are with everyone.”
People were supported by staff with the right skills and experience, as recruitment processes were in place. People were supported to be involved in the recruitment of senior staff.
People were supported by staff who understood their role and were suitably trained and supported to provide safe care.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, as staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and what to do in the event of a concern being raised.
People received a person centred service, as they had been involved in developing care plans which reflected their likes and preferences.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
People were encouraged to participate in meaningful activities. People were supported to attend social events in the local area.
People told us they had confidence in the management and they would go to them if they had any concerns.
Staff told us they felt supported by management and felt involved in driving improvements. There was a positive culture within the organisation.
St James Court consists of 12 apartments for older people. The accommodation is part of the 'Extracare' service offered by Heritage Care. Heritage Care provides support and personal care to people living at St James Court. At the time of our inspection, 12 people were living at St James Court.
St James Court has 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. St James Court also had a co-ordinator who was responsible for the day to day running on the service.
This inspection was undertaken over one day which involved speaking with the registered manager, members of staff, people who used the service and health and social care professionals.
People who lived at St James Court were complimentary about the service and staff. People told us they felt safe, were looked after by staff who knew their needs and were promoted to be as independent as possible.
Staff knew how to protect people from abuse, and how to raise any concerns to the appropriate authorities. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to protect people from potential risks and how to support people in a safe way which also protected their independence. Staffing levels were determined based on people’s needs and were sufficient in order to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. People told us staff were quick to act when they needed assistance.
Medicines were managed in a way which reduced potential risks. Where people were able to self-administer their medicines, this was done in a safe and risk assessed manner. The service had adopted strategies such as daily checks to ensure medicines were managed safely.
Recruitment checks were undertaken to ensure staff suitability to work with people living at St James Court.
Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and worked well as a team. Inductions were in place for new staff members to ensure their competency and suitability before working alone. Supervisions were provided on a regular basis. Staff were aware of who their supervisor was, and the purpose of supervision. Training was provided to staff including refresher training when needed. Staff told us training had helped them develop as workers. Where additional training had been identified, this was sought and delivered. For example, dementia training.
Staff were knowledgeable around their roles and responsibilities when working with people around consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff were able to explain what the MCA and DoLS meant, and how this affected the people they worked with. Where required, mental capacity assessments were completed along with evidence of best interest meetings.
People were supported to meet their nutrition and hydration needs, for example either being provided meals from the sister home, or promoted to cook and order their own meals. Clear guidelines were in place in people’s care plans around their nutritional needs and what support was required from staff. Where people were identified at risk of weight loss, appropriate support and procedures were put in place.
People told us they were looked after by staff who were kind and caring. We observed people being supported with their lunch in the communal dining area in a dignified and respectful manner. Staff showed how they promoted people’s independence and demonstrated respectful practices, for example, asking people’s permission and knocking on people’s doors before entering.
People’s care plans were detailed and person centred. Care plans were regularly reviewed when people’s needs changed and people were supported to be involved in their own care planning. The service maintained good links with health professionals such as doctors and visiting district nurses to ensure people’s health needs were met. This was confirmed by a visiting district nurse who stated “This is a lovely home. People are well looked after.”
Activities were provided in both St James Court and in their sister home. During our inspection, people were supported to visit the sister home to take part in the afternoon activities provided. People also told us they were supported to leave the service to undertake personal tasks such as visiting loved ones. People were also invited to take part in regular meetings to provide feedback on the service.
Audits were taken within the service to provide quality assurance. Comments and complaints were acted upon appropriately. The service maintained a calm, well maintained and co-corroborative way of working. Throughout our inspection, we found the registered manager and co-ordinator to be visible and available to people when requested.
During our inspection it was clear that the people who had used the service were treated with dignity and respect, which included all personal care taking place either in their own room or the shared bathroom. On each occasion we observed that staff knocked on the door and waited to be invited to enter.
We saw the contingency plan for the service, which included provision for action to follow in the event of a disruption to the electronic recording system. At the time of our inspection this event had occurred. It was clear that the arrangements set out in the plan were being followed.
There had been one safeguarding notification since the last inspection, which related to a medication error. The documentation confirmed that the service had taken the incident seriously and the action taken was designed to minimise the potential for re-occurrence.
We saw minutes of meetings involving senior staff from the company. These minutes confirmed that the safeguarding notification had been noted and the RM told us 'We decided that there needed to be some consistency with the way we approved staff as competent to administer medication.'
We found the service had arrangements in place to provide the care and support people required. The service involved people in decisions about their care. It had procedures to protect people from the risk of abuse. People were looked after by staff who were appropriately trained and supported. The provider had arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service provided to people.