Archived: Sovereign Court

Updated 5 January 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.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We also contacted commissioners from the local authorities who contracted people’s care. We spoke with the local safeguarding teams. We did not receive any information of concern from them.

This inspection took place on 4 December 2015 and was an unannounced inspection. It was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

We undertook general observations in communal areas and during a mealtime.

As part of the inspection we spoke with six people who were supported by Sovereign Court staff, three support workers, including the senior support worker, an agency support worker, one visiting health professional, one domestic, the registered manager and operational manager. We observed care and support in communal areas and checked the kitchen, bathrooms, lavatories and bedrooms after obtaining people’s permission. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and checked to see how the home was managed. We looked at care plans for three people, the recruitment, training and induction records for four staff, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service and the quality assurance audits the manager completed.

Updated 5 January 2016

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 4 December 2015.

We last inspected Sovereign Court in August 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the legal requirements in force at the time.

Sovereign Court is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people with neurological disorders. Nursing care is not provided.

A manager was in place who had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 told us they felt safe and were well cared for. Staff knew about safeguarding vulnerable adults. We observed staff provided care safely. Staff were subject to robust recruitment checks.

Some areas of the premises were showing signs of wear and tear. A refurbishment programme was planned.

Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, where decisions were made on behalf of people who were unable to make decisions themselves. Staff had completed other relevant training for their role and they were well supported by the management team. Training included care and safety related topics.

People’s health needs were identified and staff worked with other professionals to ensure these were addressed. Arrangements for managing people’s medicines were safe. Appropriate processes were in place for the administration of medicines. Medicines records were accurate.

Menus were designed with suggestions from people who used the service. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and special diets that were required. People were supported to be part of the local community. They were provided with some opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Care was provided with kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.

A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain.

People and staff spoken with had confidence in the new manager and felt the service had good leadership. We found there were effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people receiving care.