Comfort Call (Priory Court)

Updated 12 November 2021

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an Expert by Experiences (EXE). An EXE is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

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 announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice to ensure that people, staff and the registered manager were available to speak with us.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since registration. We sought feedback from the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service and four relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with seven members of the care staff, the registered manager and the regional manager.

We reviewed a range of records. This included five people’s care records, medication administration records and the daily notes recorded by care staff. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision and a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures and training records.

After the inspection

We asked the registered manager to provide us with a variety of policies and procedures and additional information. All information was sent within the required timeframe. We used all this information to help form our judgements detailed within this report.

Updated 12 November 2021

About the service

Comfort Call (Priory Court) is an Extra Care Housing service that provides personal care to people in their own flats in one building. At the time of the inspection 23 people were receiving this care.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received care that was safe, was appropriately assessed and reviewed and carried out by a sufficient number of trained, skilled and experienced staff. People were informed how to report concerns about their and other’s safety. We have recommended that the provider ensures people have an individually assessed personal emergency evacuation plan in place as the current process could place people’s safety at risk.

People’s medicines were well-managed; and the provider made changes to improve protocols for ‘as needed’ medicines following our inspection. People were protected from the risk of the spread of infection and accidents and incidents were investigated to prevent the risk of recurrence.

People received care that protected them from discrimination. Staff were well trained and received supervision of their role and assessment of their competency. People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle and balanced diet. People’s individual choices in relation to their meals were respected. Staff worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to provide timely and effective care.

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

Overall, people felt staff were kind and caring and they were treated with dignity and respect. People’s right to privacy was respected and independence was encouraged. People were encouraged to discuss their care needs and to request changes to their care package where needed.

People received care that was personalised to their needs, choices and preferences. The provider had systems in place that enabled them to provide documentation in alternative formats; making information accessible for all. The registered manager was taking action to prevent the risk of people becoming lonely and socially isolated. This included group activities in communal areas of the building. The provider responded to formal complaints in accordance with their complaints policy. End of Life Care was not currently provided; however, staff had received training to provide the care if required.

Robust quality assurance processes were in place. These were monitored by the registered manager and made available to senior management to ensure that quality of care provision met the required standards. Staff felt able to approach the registered manager with any concerns. People told us they wanted to see more of the registered manager and the registered manager told us they would ensure they were more visible to people.

The registered manager was knowledgeable about the regulatory requirements of their role and they were supported by the regional manager to carry out their role effectively.

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

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 2 December 2019 and this is the first inspection.