Magnet Court

Updated 27 November 2018

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.

This was a planned comprehensive inspection. The inspection took place on the 13 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that people would be in. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service including notifications the provider has sent us regarding significant incidents. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us. The provider had sent us a 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 contacted commissioners to seek their views of the service.

We spoke with two people that used the service and three members of staff including the scheme manager who assisted with the inspection, as the registered manager was not available. We looked at care plans, recruitment and supervisions information, audits and governance information and medicines audits and records. We looked at the provider's quality assurance systems to check if they identified and addressed any areas for improvement.

Updated 27 November 2018

The inspection took place on 13 November and was announced. We last inspected the service in March 2016 when it was found to be meeting with the regulations we assessed. At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Magnet Court provides support for up to fifteen people with enduring mental health conditions. People live on site in spacious, self-contained flats. Parking is available and the service is situated in a quiet residential area of Doncaster. Support packages are flexible and based on individual needs. The service is provided by SIL.2 Limited.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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. On the day of the inspection the registered manager was unavailable so the clinical lead received inspection feedback.

The service had a procedure in place to safeguard people from abuse. We spoke with staff who told us they had completed training in this area and knew how to recognise and report abuse. Staff told us they would report any issues to the assistant manager and felt confident they would deal with the matter immediately. The provider was notifying CQC about incidents that had occurred when required.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. The members of the care staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The provider was following safe recruitment procedures. People told us they were involved in the recruitment of new staff.

Records and observations showed us there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to support people in line with their needs. People received one to one support when this was needed and staff were skilled in providing person centred support.

There were systems in place to ensure people's medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained and had their competency assessed to administer medicines. We made a recommendation around recording of medicines.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and felt they had the necessary skills to do their job. Through our observations we saw staff knew people well and understood their needs. Healthcare professionals were accessed as required.

The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns.

We found the provider had robust audit and monitoring systems in place to identify and address shortfalls. Staff we spoke with felt the service was well led.