We carried out a review of the data available to us about James Terry 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 James Terry Court, you can give feedback on this service.
James Terry Court is a care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 76 people. The service provides support to older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 58 people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe at the service. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and keep them safe from identified risks to their safety and wellbeing.
There were enough staff to support people and meet their needs. The registered manager was taking action to review and increase staffing levels as people’s needs changed. Recruitment and criminal records checks were carried out on staff to make sure they were suitable to support people. We noted decisions to employ staff had not been formally recorded, where a gap in information or concern about their previous employment had been identified. The registered manager was taking action to address this going forwards.
Health and safety checks were carried out of the premises and equipment to make sure they were safe. The premises was clean and tidy. Staff followed infection control and hygiene practice to reduce the risk of infections. Although staff did not routinely wear face masks at the service in line with current government guidance, the provider had taken action to ensure infection risks to people were mitigated.
People were involved in planning and making decisions about the care and support they required. People’s records set out their preferences for how their care and support needs should be provided. Staff understood how people’s needs should be met and provided the care and support which had been planned for people. Staff were provided with relevant training to help them meet people’s needs. Staff were well supported and encouraged to learn and improve in their role and to put people’s needs and wishes at the heart of everything they did.
Staff were kind, caring and treated people well. They supported people in a discreet and dignified way which maintained people’s privacy and independence. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to stay healthy and well. Staff helped people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and to take their prescribed medicines. Medicines were managed safely. Staff supported people to manage their healthcare and medical conditions and made sure people could access support from healthcare professionals when needed. The service worked well with other healthcare professionals to ensure a joined-up approach to the care and support people received.
People were supported to participate in a wide range of activities and events at the service. Relatives and friends were free to visit people if they wished without any unnecessary restrictions. There were a range of comfortable spaces around the premises where people could spend time , when not in their room. Since our last inspection the provider had improved the premises to make this a more comfortable and pleasant place for people to live. Further refurbishment was planned.
The service was managed well. People and staff spoke positively about the management of the service, particularly the new registered manager who had been appointed since our last inspection. The registered manager and senior staff team were experienced and had a clear understanding of how people’s needs should be met. They undertook audits and checks at regular intervals, to monitor, review and improve the quality and safety of the service. The provider undertook their own checks of the service at regular intervals to make sure the service was meeting required standards.
There were systems in place to obtain feedback from people, staff and others about how the service could be improved. Accidents, incidents and complaints were fully investigated and people were informed of the outcome.
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 10 October 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
You can access previous inspection reports about the service by selecting the 'all reports' link for James Terry Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
James Terry Court is a large care home that provides accommodation, personal care and nursing care for up to 76 older people. People who use the service have a range of care and nursing needs associated with old age, which may include living with dementia.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and staff had positive things to say about senior staff and said they were approachable, supportive and responsive to their needs. The provider was making positive changes to continuously improve the service. Improvements that had been made had made a difference to staff who now had access to better information about how to meet people’s needs. Future planned improvements would make the service a more stimulating and comfortable place for people to live.
However, people had few opportunities to share their views and have their say in how the service could continuously improve to meet their needs. The quality of information and communication provided to people and their representatives also needed to improve. People were not told how the provider planned to deal with any issues identified through internal quality reviews of the service. This lack of openness and transparency meant people had limited opportunities to hold the provider to account for making required improvements and changes at the service.
People were safe at James Terry Court. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse and followed appropriate guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and welfare. Regular checks of the premises and equipment were carried out to ensure these were safe and posed no risks to people.
There were enough staff deployed to keep people safe. People told us there was a shortage of permanent staff at the service and the provider was using temporary agency staff to cover vacancies. However the provider had measures and checks in place to help them ensure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.
The provider had robust arrangements in place to check the suitability and fitness of all permanent and temporary agency staff to support people. Staff were trained and supported by senior staff to meet people's needs. They knew people well and provided people with support that was dignified, respectful and which maintained their privacy.
Staff supported people to be as independent as they could and wanted to be. The environment was well designed and provided a comfortable and supportive environment for older people, particularly for those living with dementia.
People were involved in planning and making decisions about their care and support needs. People's support plans reflected their needs and their choices and preferences for how they received care. Staff were aware of their duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They obtained people's consent before providing support and followed legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent. Senior staff reviewed people's care and support needs regularly.
People were supported to stay healthy and well and staff encouraged them to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. Staff monitored people's general health and wellbeing and where there were any issues or concerns about a person's health, staff ensured they received prompt care and attention from appropriate healthcare professionals. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed to them.
People were encouraged to take part in activities to meet their social and physical needs and to reduce risks to them from social isolation. People were also supported to pursue their specific interests. Their family and friends were encouraged to attend social events that took place at the service which helped people to maintain these important relationships.
People were satisfied with the care and support they received from the service. The provider maintained appropriate arrangements to deal with people’s complaints and concerns if they were dissatisfied with any aspect of the service.
The senior staff team carried out a wide range of checks and audits to monitor and review the quality of the service. When areas for improvement had been identified through these checks, senior staff took action to make any changes that were needed. Learning from accidents and incidents helped improve staff’s understanding and awareness of why these occurred and the appropriate actions to take to reduce the risk of further reoccurrence.