Rubery Court

Updated 18 October 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was completed by one inspector.

Service and service type

Rubery Court is a ‘care home’. The top floor of the home consisted of two flats where people received personal care but had separate contractual arrangements for their flats. As CQC does not look at premises used for supported living we only looked at how these people received personal care. People in the care home received accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. In this instance CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service although they were not able to tell us about their experience of the care provided due to their communication needs. We therefore used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with two visiting relatives.

We spoke with five members of staff including the registered manager, assistant manager, one senior support worker and two care workers. We looked at two people's care records, medicine records and other records related to the running of the home. We also spoke with the area manager and the nominated individual for the provider during our inspection. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. The registered manager sent further information including training data.

Updated 18 October 2019

About the service

Rubery Court is a care home providing care for adults with a learning disability and/or autism, physical disability or mental health conditions. The service provides long term and short stay care. The service is registered to accommodate a maximum of 8 people, and five people were living at the home at the time of our inspection. There were also two people living in their own flats on the top floor, with personal care provided by dedicated staff who were managed by the registered manager.

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 a domestic style property although it did not present as a care home. Support staff did not wear anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people and transport used by the service was not identifiable as anything other than family transport.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

People were safe, and staff were aware of how to minimise risks to people and promote their safety, whilst considering their rights. Staff knew how to work with people to identify risks and change their approach to minimise these.

People were supported by care staff that were caring and expressed interest in people and the support they provided them. People received person centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people, their needs and preferences and used this to develop a good relationship with people.

People were supported by care staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. There was some need for training refreshers, but this had been identified and training updates had been booked. Staff understood, felt confident and well supported in their role. People's health was supported as staff worked with other health care providers when needed to support people’s healthcare needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff understood they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People enjoyed meals that reflected their preferences and there was access to a range of foods that met people’s needs due to their health, culture or specific preferences. People's care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences. Staff were able to explain how people were involved to ensure care plans were person centred and involved people and their wider family. We saw the service was responsive to information from people and relatives.

People could complain, and concerns were listened to and responded to by staff. Complaints and comments were used as a tool to drive improvement of the service.

People, relatives and staff were able to share their views with staff. People enjoyed living at Rubery Court and were able to follow their chosen routines and enjoyed access to activities at the service or in the community.

Quality monitoring systems included audits and regular checks on people’s satisfaction with the service they received. The provider had systems in place to ensure they kept up to date with developments in the sector and changes in the law.

The registered manager and staff were approachable, organised, listened and responded to them and acted on feedback when they shared this with them. The registered manager demonstrated they wished to improve the service further, for example developing care records further so they would be more person centred.

Outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible to gain new skills and become more independent.

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 01/04/2017).

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.