Archived: Roman Court

Updated 27 February 2019

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 registered provider was 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 15 January 2019 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert’s area of expertise was in the care of older people.

We brought this inspection forward because we received information of concern from visiting health care professionals about the standard and safety of care provided, with a focus on care planning and risk management, medicines management and staff’s understanding and approach to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. We looked at the information received about the service from notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the registered provider. The registered provider had completed a provider information return (PIR) This is a document that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

At the time of our inspection there were 31 people using the service. We spoke informally with six people who used the service and four visiting relatives. As we were unable to communicate with most people living at the home due to their complex needs we spent time observing care throughout the service, we also used 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 the manager, the clinical lead, one nurse and three care workers. We spoke with a visiting social worker and a community nurse to gain their view of the service. After the inspection, we spoke with the local authority contracts monitoring officer, who also undertakes periodic visits to the home.

We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. We looked at three people’s written and electronic records, including the plans of their care. We also looked at the systems used to manage people’s medication, including the storage and records kept. We looked at three staff personnel and recruitment records, minutes of meetings and the quality assurance systems employed in the home.

Updated 27 February 2019

Roman Court is a care home which provides care and support to people with nursing and personal care needs. The home provides accommodation for up to 36 older people, most of whom are living with dementia. Accommodation is provided on two floors; a lift is available to access the first floor. At the time of the inspection there were 31 people living in the home.

This comprehensive inspection was unannounced, which meant those associated with the home did not know we were coming. It took place on 15 January 2019.

At the last inspection in January 2017 the service was rated as good. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Roman Court’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence from our inspection that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The previous registered manager had left the service around six months prior to this inspection and the provider had appointed a new manager, who had previously been the deputy. The new manager had applied to be registered with CQC. 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.

We found the provider continued to make sure people were protected from abuse. The manager kept the staffing levels under review to ensure there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were well managed and records showed people received their medicines as prescribed. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans were in place to reduce the risks. The home was undergoing a programme of gradual refurbishment and redecoration.

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. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and they supported people to eat well, with choices of a variety of food and drink. People’s physical health was monitored, so that appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. Staff received training and support to ensure that they could fulfil their role. Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the manager.

There was a person centred and caring culture in the care team. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual.) The service had a friendly atmosphere. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way and encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. The relatives we spoke with told us they felt staff were caring.

The activities and entertainment was designed to meet the needs of the people who used the service and was mindful of people’s ability to concentrate. We observed staff undertaking activities with people, one to one. The complaints process was clear and people’s comments and complaints were taken seriously, investigated and responded to in a timely way.

Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service, using opportunities for learning and improvement. The manager placed a lot of emphasis on listening to and involving people, those close to them, the staff and other professionals and was developing more formal ways of doing this.

Further information is in the detailed findings of this report.