Archived: Turnberry Court

Updated 2 February 2017

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 inspection took place on 14 and 15 December 2016. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the visit on 14 December and arranged to return on 15 December to complete the inspection. We gave the provider notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

On 14 December, the inspection team comprised two inspectors. On 15 December, one inspector returned to the service to complete the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the last inspection report, statutory notifications about incidents and events affecting people using the service and a Provider Information Return (PIR) the registered manager completed and sent to us. The PIR 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.

During the inspection we spoke with 14 people using the service, the registered manager, a care co-ordinator, the service’s activities organiser, facilities officer and seven care staff. We also met with the provider’s care and support compliance manager and assistant director. We reviewed the care records for four people using the service, including their support plans, risk assessments and medicines management records. We also reviewed two staff recruitment files and records related to the running of the service. These included maintenance records, checks and audits the provider carried out to monitor quality in the service and make improvements.

Following the inspection we spoke with five relatives of people using the service and received comments from one social care professional.

Updated 2 February 2017

This inspection took place on 14 and 15 December 2016. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the visit on 14 December and arranged to return on 15 December to complete the inspection. We gave the provider notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The last inspection was in January 2014 when we found the service was meeting all of the standards we inspected.

Turnberry Court is an extra-care sheltered housing service that provides care and support for people living in their own flats. The service provides 38 one-bedroom and two two-bedroom flats. There is a team of care workers based on site to provide people with the care and support they need.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since the service opened. 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 who used the service and their relatives spoke extremely positively about the quality of care and support provided at Turnberry Court. People repeatedly told us there were enough staff to meet their support needs and staff went the extra mile to help people. People frequently referred to care staff as 'kind' and 'caring.' People who used the service, their relatives and a social care professional consistently commended staff knowledge and competence. Relatives repeatedly told us they were confident that people who used the service were safe and supported by competent staff. Relatives also praised the ways in which people's quality of life had improved since their family members moved into the service.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. People told us they felt safe and secure. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were aware of their responsibilities for reporting any concerns. Suitable recruitment procedures meant the provider carried out checks on all staff before they started work in the service.

People’s support plans strongly emphasised the importance of promoting independence and empowering people. Staff promoted a person centred approach to risk. This enabled people to take calculated risks which enhanced their well-being.

Suitable arrangements were in place for managing and administering medicines. Regular medicines audits were carried out to ensure medicines were administered appropriately to promote safe and effective care.

The service worked in partnership with other care professionals to meet people’s needs. A social care professional praised the standard of care provided and described the service as professional and reliable.

Staff supported people to attend a wide range activities. The approach to providing activities was individual and person-centred. Staff spent time with people talking about their hobbies and interests and used this information to plan a programme of activities. People were enthusiastic about the activities and the opportunities made available to them and repeatedly said there was plenty to do. There were active links with the local community and people were encouraged to be citizens in their own community. The provider and staff in the service had worked creatively with an independent organisation to provide stimulating and imaginative activities that people told us they enjoyed.

The environment had been designed and arranged to provide positive living, learning and social experiences. The service provided excellent standards of private and communal accommodation. There were extensive facilities on site to support people's care and leisure needs and where they were able to practice and develop the skills they needed to live as independently as possible.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had received appropriate training, and had a good understanding of, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

There was an exceptionally inclusive atmosphere in the service. People told us that staff knew them well and they felt involved in how the service was run. We observed excellent examples of good caring interactions between people and staff during our inspection. Staff treated people with the upmost dignity and there was a respect between people and staff that created a warm and caring environment. People's privacy was protected by sensitive and compassionate staff.

There was a welcoming, homely atmosphere within the service where visitors were encouraged. The staff promoted and nurtured links with family members. There was also an open and transparent culture within the service. Feedback was continuously gained from all parties as a means to develop and improve the service. People who used the service and their relatives told us they were consulted on a regular basis.

The provider trained staff to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. Staff training was monitored and provided when training needs were identified. Staff praised the training on offer and said they were encouraged to develop their own interests within the workplace. Staff were eager to learn and improve their knowledge in order to provide more effective care. Staff had clear knowledge of roles and responsibilities and knew how to seek advice and guidance if they required support and guidance.

Staff were consistently positive about the way the service was managed and the support received from the management team. Staff praised the positive presence of the registered manager and the management team at the service and repeatedly described them as supportive and professional. Staff described a positive working environment with high levels of job satisfaction. Staff spoke highly about the good teamwork which took place within the service and said this contributed to positive outcomes for people.

Staff described communication within the service as 'good.' They told us regular team meetings took place to discuss concerns and improvements. Staff said they were able to contribute to making suggestions to improve service delivery and they felt their opinions were listened to.

Leadership within the organisation was exceptionally strong. Managers had a clear vision of what was required of a quality service and this spread throughout the organisation. All staff were respectful of management and demonstrated a commitment to working towards the shared values of the organisation.

The service worked proactively with other organisations to ensure they were implementing and following best practice guidelines. Information was actively shared throughout the provider organisation to assist improvements within other services.

The registered manager had implemented a range of assurance systems to monitor quality and effectiveness of the service provided. Audits were carried out by different members of staff within the organisation, by staff who had specific knowledge and skills. This was overseen by a member of the senior management team and the registered manager.