Regal Court Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Care plans identified and reflected individual preferences, wishes and the support they needed to inform staff of how best to support them. However, some people’s care and support plans did not reflect accurate information. People and their relatives told us, they had no access to care and support plan. Staff were positive about how the service was run and the support they received from the registered manager. Although, the provider conducted relatives’ satisfaction survey feedback responses were positive, they gave us a mixed feedback about their satisfaction with staff team.

This service scored 14 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives told us they had no access to a care and support plan. They gave a mixed feedback about their satisfactory levels with receiving care and support from staff.

Care plans identified and reflected individual preferences, wishes and the support they needed to inform staff of how best to support them. However, care records of four people with a learning disability and/or autistic people showed some elements of regulated activity. Such as staff to prompt in relation to personal and oral care and staff to support in relation to skin care. For example, one person’s care records showed “I need staff to prompt me sometimes and encourage me to do it to a good standard, otherwise I will suffer from self-neglect, poor personal hygiene, and loss of dignity.” Another person’s care record noted, “I need prompting to brush and monitoring when brushing to ensure I brush properly.” Their care passport mentioned “I need support in prompting to have shower to wash properly.” Staff recorded in their monthly care record “[name of the person] was supported with prompts to carry out their personal care. The person is able to manage their personal care from wakeup call to toileting and bathing. The person is supported by the staff to ensure it is done daily.” However, the registered manager told us the information reflecting a regulated activity in people’ care records was not accurate and they would amend straight away. This inaccurate information in people’s care records placed people using the service and staff at risk of potential harm.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Relatives told us, people’s care and support plans were not shared with them.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. The provider identified people’s information and communication needs by assessing them and their care records were made available in formats that met people’s needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

People and their relatives gave us a mixed feedback about information sharing. One relative said, they were not aware of the process to make a complaint. Another relative told us, it appears that communication about important matters and preferences seems to be a challenge with the provider.

Staff were positive about how the service was run and the support they received from the registered manager.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place which informed people on how to make a complaint and what they could expect in response. However, we found that the provider was not proactive in seeking ways to communicate with relatives and to address concerns promptly and appropriately. The provider carried out a satisfaction survey from the relatives and their responses were positive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.