Archived: Ewer Court

Updated 25 October 2016

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 29 June 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before we carried out our inspection we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed statutory notifications that had been sent to us in the last year. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us.

We spoke with two people who used the service, one relative, three of the four staff and the registered manager.

We reviewed three care plans, two medication records, two staff files and staffing rotas covering eight weeks. We also reviewed quality and safety monitoring records and records relating to the maintenance of the service and equipment.

Updated 25 October 2016

The inspection took place on 29 June 2016 and was unannounced.

The service is registered to provide care and support to three people with a range of physical and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service, each living in their own flat.

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.

Staff were trained in safeguarding people from the risk of abuse and systems were in place which were designed to protect people from all forms of abuse, including financial. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any safeguarding concerns they may have.

Risks had been assessed and actions taken to reduce these risks. Risk assessments were detailed and demonstrated a commitment to ensuring people were as independent as possible.

Staffing levels matched those the service had assessed to be safe and to support and promote independence. Recruitment procedures, designed to ensure that staff were suitable for this type of work, were robust and staff employed had suitable skills and experience to carry out their roles.

Medicines were administered safely and records related to medicines management were accurately completed.

Staff training was comprehensive and there was ongoing development of the skills of the staff team. The manager ensured that they, and their staff, were kept updated with current health and social care practice.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and DoLS ensure that, where people lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions are made in their best interests according to a structured process. Where people’s liberty needs to be restricted for their own safety, this must done in accordance with legal requirements. The service acted in accordance with the MCA and people’s consent was established before care and treatment was provided.

People were supported with their eating and drinking needs and staff helped people to achieve and maintain good health by supporting them with their dietary and day to day healthcare needs.

Staff were very caring and treated people respectfully making sure their dignity was maintained. Staff were positive about the job they did and enjoyed the relationships they had built with the people they were supporting and caring for.

People, and their relatives, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and were encouraged to provide feedback on the service. Care plans had been appropriately reviewed and reflected people’s current needs.

There had been no formal complaints but a complaints procedure and policy was in place and the service responded to informal feedback well. People had been supported to make a complaint about their local environment.

Staff understood their roles and felt well supported by the manager of the service. Supervision was regular and effective and an annual appraisal system was in place. The manager was particularly committed to developing their team and worked innovatively to check and improve staff practice.

Quality assurance systems were good and the manager was proactive in gathering and acting on feedback from relevant people connected with the service, as well as those who lived there.

Record keeping was good and there was clear management oversight of the day to day running of the service. The manager maintained links with local forums to ensure that the service followed current and best practice in order to deliver a high quality service.