We carried out a review of the data available to us about April 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 April Court, you can give feedback on this service.
People, staff and visitors to April Court were protected from risks of infection as policies and staff practices were reflective of current best practice guidance. Information on safe visiting to the service was displayed clearly on the front door, visiting was by appointment and staff were on hand to support with ensuring safe handwashing and personal protective equipment (PPE) procedures were followed. The service was clean and provided handwashing facilities and hand sanitising stations around the building. Changes to the environment included creating safe outdoor and indoor socially distanced sitting areas, screening between people and their visitors and utilising an external door which avoided non-essential visitor footfall in the service.
People were involved in decisions, and their consent obtained, to shield in line with government guidance to keep them safe. Information was shared verbally, and with the use of pictures, to communicate to people the need to shield and social distance. Staff were aware of people who did not understand the concept of social distancing and took actions to minimise risk such as diverting people to a safer space or engaging in a favourite activity.
Risks to people’s mental well-being were understood and actions to reduce risk of social isolation had included skype calls to family and friends and increased social activities such as BBQ’s. People had been given a Covid-19 survival pack that had been produced by People First Dorset, which is a user led charity supporting people with learning disabilities. It provided information in an accessible format on how to keep safe, taking care of mental health, ways to exercise, healthy meal ideas and fun activities to complete. Staff told us the survival pack had really made a positive difference in aiding people’s understanding and well-being.
PPE was being used correctly and in good supply. Weekly audits of PPE were being completed and stock stored centrally by the organisation. People and the staff team had all consented to regular testing, which was being carried out in line with the latest government guidance. Staff were up to date with training and infection prevention and control (IPC) champions were in place. A weekly call, provided by a designated IPC lead from the local health authority, was providing support and updates if needed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
April Court is a care home for adults with a learning disability. It does not provide nursing care.
The service has been developed and designed in line with 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 and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered to accommodate up to 18 people. Fourteen people were living or staying there at the time of the inspection. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area. There was an emphasis on people living meaningful and active lives within the local community.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives were confident they or their family member were safe. There were enough staff on duty. Staff understood their responsibilities for recognising and reporting abuse. Risks were reviewed regularly and managed in the least restrictive way possible. The premises were kept clean and in good repair. Medicines were managed safely.
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.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice, independence and inclusion. The outcomes for people using the service reflected this. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
Staff treated people kindly and respectfully. Staff got to know people well. They respected and promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and relatives said they were consulted and kept well informed.
People were contented. Their needs were viewed holistically and formed the basis of comprehensive, individualised care plans. They had the support they needed to manage their health. People liked the food and said there was plenty of it. Special dietary needs were met. They had a meaningful say in how communal areas were decorated. Staff were well supported through training and supervision.
People told us they got the right support. Relatives commented on how well their loved ones were cared for. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs. People lived full and active lives. Complaints were addressed and resolved promptly, thoroughly and openly. Although the service did not routinely care for people at the end of their lives, it had recently attained accreditation with a nationally recognised scheme that promotes good end of life care.
Relatives expressed confidence in how the home was run. Staff said the management team were approachable and supportive. There was ongoing oversight by the registered manager and provider, with regular audits to monitor the quality of all aspects of the service. People and staff had a meaningful say in what happened at the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 15 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
The service 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. Staff were training in safeguarding adults and understood what to do if they were concerned about someone. People’s risks were managed safely and there was a system in place to investigate any accidents or incidents. Recruitment processes were robust and medicines were managed safely.
Staff told us they were well supported, sufficiently trained and that they had enough time to support people effectively and responsively. People told us they enjoyed the meals and that there were plenty of choices.
People’s healthcare needs were met and an individualised approach to activities meant people were leading happy and fulfilled lives.
Staff were caring and compassionate with a thoughtful approach and interest in the people they supported. People liked the staff they worked with and their dignity and independence was promoted.
Staff had accurate guidance in place to enable them to help people in the way they wanted or needed to be supported.
There was a complaints system in place.
People, staff and relatives feedback was sought and this led to changes to improve people’s experiences. There were effective quality assurance mechanisms in place.