Archived: Sovereign Court

Updated 18 July 2018

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 18 and 19 June 2018 and was unannounced on the first day. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). We used information the provider sent us in the PIR to support the planning process. 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 reviewed information we held about the service, including statutory notifications we had received from the provider about deaths, safeguarding concerns or serious injuries. Notifications are incidents which the provider is legally obliged to send the Commission. We contacted the local authority commissioners and safeguarding teams and the local Healthwatch team. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion which gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services. We also contacted the fire authority, palliative care teams and infection control lead for care homes who may have been involved with the service. We used any information received to support our planning and judgements.

During this inspection we carried out observations using 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 eight people who used the service, four family members and one family friend. We also spoke with the manager, the unit manager, two senior care staff, the lifestyles coordinator (activities coordinator) and five care staff (including night and day staff). We observed how staff interacted with people and looked at a range of records which included the care records for four people and medicines records for 10 people. We looked at five staff personnel files, health and safety information and other documents related to the management of the service.

Updated 18 July 2018

This inspection took place on 18 and 19 June 2018 and was unannounced on the first day, which meant the provider was not aware we would be visiting. This was the first inspection following the change in registration to a new provider for this location. Although the registration of the provider had changed, the service had the same staff and people living there remained the same.

Sovereign Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodates up to 12 people with neurological disorders. At the time of the inspection 10 people were living at the service.

The service did not have a registered manager, however, the CQC had received an application from the manager to register and this was in the final stages of being processed. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

There were policies and procedures in place to support the smooth running of the service. These included a safeguarding policy which staff told us they understood along with their responsibilities towards protecting people from harm. They told us they would report any concerns without hesitation. People told us they felt safe and relatives confirmed this. We found there were enough staff to support people with their needs at the service. Checks on the safety of the home were routinely carried out when required. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place and the provider had an emergency contingency which would be used in any crisis.

Medicines were generally managed well in a polite, non-rushed manner by the staff undertaking this task. Risks to individuals had been identified and assessments to reduce the hazards to people had been put in place. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify trends, although falls analysis needed to be reviewed and the manager was going to do that. Where people needed additional advice or support, they were referred to external healthcare professionals as necessary.

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

Staff received an induction and suitable training with ongoing updates. Staff supervisions had been undertaken, more in recent times; and the manager was working their way through appraisals to ensure every member had received one. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team.

People received a mixed and varied menu and their comments were mostly positive about the food and refreshments they received. The provider had listened to people about any changes to the menu they needed to make. Picture cards showing meals had not always been used with people who may have benefited, but the manager said this would be addressed.

We observed staff respected people, and their privacy and dignity was maintained. Staff displayed caring and kind attitudes and treated people as individuals. The management team had dealt with some recent issues to ensure that this was maintained. We saw staff offered people choices and encouraged them to make decisions about daily life where this was appropriate.

People participated in activities. The service was developing their activities programme to better suit the needs of all the people who used the service. Staff supported people to maintain links by welcoming family, friends and visitors into the service.

People and relatives told us they knew how to complain and would do so if it was required. Complaints had been recorded and investigated. Meetings were used to gather feedback about the service and the care provided to people. The management operated an ‘open door’ policy which meant any person or relative could speak to them at any time. The management team had a range of checks and audits in place to monitor the care and the overall service provided.

We made two recommendations which we will follow up at our next inspection. One was in connection to the access to outside areas without the need for people to pass through a smoking area. The other was in connection to the storage of care records.