Regal Court Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Several staff were employed without prior appropriate recruitment checks being carried out. Notwithstanding the above, people and their relatives felt safe when receiving care from staff. Staff understood what abuse was, the types of abuse, and the signs to look for.

This service scored 25 (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, sometimes their communication with the provider was not clear. For example, one relative said, “I don’t know if this is a new company, and they don’t know how to communicate with relatives. I bring it up with the registered manager as the only email I’ve received is a general email. They say oh yes, we want to improve, but it’s a bit drawn out for several months. They seem to have enthusiasm at first but the follow through is flaky.”

The registered manager told us peoples care records did not always accurately reflect the support they received.

There were systems and processes in place to manage and follow up on accidents and incidents. However, there was no analysis completed to identify any trends or patterns for lessons learnt and discussion with staff to minimise the risk of reoccurrence of such incidents and embed good practice within the service.

Relatives of people who use the service told us the provider ensured the continuity of their care. For example, a relative told us, “[The] social worker had set up [my relative’s] care to move in a supported living service, so it was a best move, although I was a sceptical at first.”

There were systems and process in place to enable smooth transition between services and follow the advice sought from health and social care professionals and commissioners about the care and treatment delivered by the service.

We received a mixed response from people and their relatives. For example, one person told us, “I feel safe here.” One relative said, “Oh yeah, its brilliant because if my [loved one] is not happy they will say when I visit them.” Another relative commented, “I think there are opportunities for things to go wrong.”

We drew these omissions to the registered managers attention who confirmed that CQC had not been notified and it was an oversight. Staff understood what abuse was, the types of abuse, and the signs to look for. This included staff being aware of the action to take if they suspected someone had been abused and reporting their concerns to the registered manager. Staff completed safeguarding training and knew the procedure for whistle blowing and said they would use it if they needed to.

The provider had a policy and procedure for safeguarding adults from abuse. The registered manager understood what abuse was, the types of abuse, and the signs to look for. This included reporting their concerns to the local authority safeguarding team.

People and their relative told us, they had no access to risk management plans to know how staff mitigate any potential risk to their loved ones.

Staff told us, they knew how to respond to people’s risks and to meet their needs. They said, the registered manager supported them as and when required.

The registered manager carried out risks assessments and identified potential risks to people and staff had adequate guidance to support people in a safe manner. However, we were not assured that relatives were involved in the assessment and risk management plans for their loved ones.

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

People and their relatives told us they were not aware if staff were adequately trained but one member of staff was pleasant and caring.

The registered manager told us they shall make an application for staff criminal record checks straight away, and all staff had been trained to carry out their roles effectively, and that they also undertake spot checks to ensure people’s needs are met. Staff told us they had supervision meetings and the training programmes enabled them to deliver the care and support people needed. They said, they felt supported and could approach the registered manager at any time.

Staff recruitment processes did not follow safe recruitment practices, and some were employed without completing criminal record checks placing people using the service at risk of receiving unsafe care and support. There were systems in place to provide staff with appropriate ongoing supervision and support within their roles to confirm their competence within their roles was maintained. Staff completed training required to carry out their roles. The training covered areas such as basic food hygiene, health and safety, moving and handling, infection prevention and control, promoting privacy and dignity, administration of medicine, mental capacity act, and The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.