Nicholas Court

Updated 10 April 2019

The inspection:

• 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.

Inspection team:

• Our inspection was completed by one inspector.

Service and service type:

• Nicholas Court is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. 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 the information, we held about the service including notifications the provider had sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

• We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

• We contacted the local authority with responsibility for commissioning care from the service to seek their views about the service.

• During the inspection, we spoke with one person who used the service, one relative, the registered manager and three care staff.

• We reviewed three care records for people using the service, including risk assessments. We viewed the transition paperwork for one person who was preparing to move into the service.

• We reviewed three staff files including recruitment and supervision.

• We looked at records relating to how the service was managed including staff training, medicines and quality assurance documentation.

• After the inspection, we spoke with one relative.

Updated 10 April 2019

About the service:

• Nicholas Court is a care home providing personal care and support for people with learning disabilities and complex needs. The care home is registered for eight people.

• At the time of this inspection there were three people using the service and one person about to start their transition into the service.

• The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse.

• People’s risks were assessed, and plans were in place to minimise the risks.

• Staff were recruited safely and were supported with training, supervision and appraisals.

• People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the appropriate support could be given.

• People were supported with their healthcare needs and their medicines were managed safely.

• People and their relatives were involved in decisions about the care.

• Staff knew how to provide an equitable service.

• People’s privacy and dignity was promoted, and they were encouraged to maintain their independence.

• People received personalised care which included their preferences and the goals they wished to achieve. This included their choice of activities.

• 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’s communication needs were met.

• Staff and relatives gave positive feedback about the leadership within the service.

• People were asked to provide feedback on their satisfaction with the service.

• Quality checks were carried out to identify areas for improvement.

Rating at last inspection:

• Good (report published on 19 March 2016).

Why we inspected:

• This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

• We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.

• For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk