Archived: Bevan Court

Bevan Court provides an extra care service of personal care and support to older people within a complex of 41 apartments. Staff provide care at pre-arranged times and people have access to call bells for staff to respond whenever additional help is required. The complex is spread over three floors with a lift and stairs to each floor. People have access to communal lounges and a dining room.

At the time of our visit 31 people were receiving personal care support. We last inspected the service in June 2016 and gave the service an overall rating of ‘Requires improvement’.

The service did not have a registered manager. We were made aware shortly before our inspection visit the previous registered manager had left the service and a new manager was being recruited. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manager 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. The service was being supported by two team leaders, an operational support manager and two interim operational support managers.

People received varying levels of support from staff, depending on their needs. Some people only required minimal assistance with their personal care. Other people required assistance with taking medicines, continence care, and support with nutrition and mobility.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who delivered their care. Staff were aware of the action they needed to take if they had any concerns about people’s safety, or health and wellbeing.

The staff allocation sheets showed there were sufficient staff to cover people’s scheduled calls. People told us they mostly received their care on time and staff stayed the allocated time to complete tasks. The provider was recruiting new staff and gaps in the staff rota were supported by agency staff. However, the provider used regular agency workers and bank staff, to ensure people received support from staff that knew them.

Staff received an induction and training when they started working at Bevan Court. There were plans in place to ensure all staff completed training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. Staff received supervision and support and told us the management team were approachable and supportive.

Care plans did not always include important information about risks to people’s health, but staff were able to talk confidently about how they managed risks, as they knew people well. Care plans were written in a ‘person-centred’ way that supported staff in delivering care and assistance that met people’s individual needs. However, the interim operations manager acknowledged more detail about people and their current needs was required within care plans and they were addressing this.

People were happy with the care they received and said staff were caring and friendly. Staff respected people’s privacy and maintained people’s dignity when providing care. The management team and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care.

All the people we spoke with clearly recognised that due to the support and care provided by staff, they were able to enjoy living relatively independently in their own homes.

There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided through feedback from people and a programme of checks and audits.

The provider had sent us relevant statutory notifications in order for us to monitor the quality of the service being provided, however we identified two incidents we had not been notified about and the interim operations manager was investigating these further.

Bevan Court provides an extra care service of personal care and support to older people within a complex of 41 apartments. Staff provide care at pre-arranged times and people have access to call bells for staff to respond whenever additional help is required. The complex is spread over three floors with a lift and stairs to each floor. People have access to communal lounges and a dining room.

At the time of our visit 38 people were receiving personal care support. This was the first time the service had been inspected under our new methodology. We last inspected the service in September 2013 and found it was compliant.

The service had a registered manager. 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 refer to them as the manager in this report. They were being supported by two team leaders and the providers’ locality manager for the area.

People received varying levels of support from staff, depending on their needs. Some people only required a ‘wellbeing’ check or minimal assistance with personal care. Other people required assistance with taking medicines, continence care, and support with nutrition and mobility.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who delivered their care. Staff were aware of the action they needed to take if they had any concerns about people’s safety, or health and wellbeing. However, we found that safeguarding concerns were not consistently reported correctly to the local safeguarding team so that investigations could take place if required.

The staff allocation sheets showed us there were sufficient staff to cover the scheduled calls to people. People told us they mostly received their care on time and staff stayed the allocated time to complete tasks. The provider was recruiting new staff and gaps in the staff rota were supported by agency staff. However, the provider used regular agency workers, and bank staff, to ensure people received support from staff that knew them.

Staff received a detailed induction and training when they started working at Bevan Court. There were plans in place to ensure all staff completed the required training to ensure their work reflected good practice. Staff received supervision and support and told us the manager was approachable and supportive.

Care plans did not always include important information about risks to people’s health, but staff were able to talk confidently about how they managed risks, as they knew people well. Care plans were written in a ‘person-centred’ way that supported staff in delivering care and assistance that met people’s individual needs. However the manager acknowledged more detail about people and their current needs was required within care plans and they were addressing this.

People were happy with the care they received and said staff were caring and friendly. Staff respected people’s privacy and maintained people’s dignity when providing care. The manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care.

All the people we spoke with clearly recognised that due to the support and care provided by staff, they were able to enjoy living relatively independently in their own homes.

There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided through feedback from people and a programme of checks and audits.

However the provider had not sent us all relevant statutory notifications in order for us to monitor the quality of the service being provided.

People we spoke with were happy with the care and support they received from staff. One person said, 'I'm not afraid of anything. I know if anything is wrong I just press my button. I'm really glad I am here." Another told us, 'Marvellous ' absolutely marvellous. I dreaded it but they can't do enough for you.'

People had care plans in place detailing their care and support needs. Information about pressure care management could be improved to ensure staff had clear information about how to manage this.

People had signed records to confirm their consent to the care and support provided.

People were positive about the staff supporting them. They told us: 'They are very pleasant. Nice. If I need anything they will do it.' 'The staff I have met have been lovely.' Staff were supported to gain qualifications in health and social care. The service had a procedure for supporting staff through supervision, observations and annual appraisals.

The service had a complaints policy which was available to the people living there. People told us they would refer any complaints to the manager.

During our visit we spoke with the manager, five members of staff and nine of the people who used the service.

The people who lived at Bevan Court received varying levels of personal care and support. Some people only required well being checks, whilst others received a higher level of care and support.

People spoken with were overwhelmingly satisfied with the level of service provided. One person told us, "They take care of all my personal wishes and I'm always treated with respect." Another described the service as "perfect". People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and asked permission before carrying out personal care. They confirmed care staff turned up on time and delivered care as they wished. Staff spoken with were knowledgeable about people's needs and what support they required.

Staff we spoke to knew what they would do to keep people safe if they observed or suspected abuse.

We saw the service operated an effective recruitment procedure that ensured staff were of good character and had the competencies and skills to meet the needs of the people who lived at Bevan Court.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to gain the views of the people who lived there.