Archived: Connington Court

Updated 24 December 2016

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 provider is 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 the 5, 9, 12, and 16 September 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert-by-experience on the first day. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. One inspector visited on the other inspection dates.

Before the inspection, we looked at the evidence we already held about the service. This included the last inspection report and notifications the provider had sent us. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also spoke to the local borough contracts and commissioning team.

During the inspection, we spoke with six staff which included four care staff, the registered manager and deputy manager. We also spoke with two people who used the service and after the inspection we spoke with one relative. We observed care and support in communal areas and 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 to us. We reviewed four care records, four staff files and records relating to the management of the service including, medicines, policies, staff training and quality audits.

Updated 24 December 2016

Connington Court is a specialist residential service designed to support up to six adults with learning disabilities who may also have autism, complex needs or behaviours that challenge services. The service is provided on ground floor level and at the time of inspection there were four people using the service.

At the previous inspection completed on 24 November 2015 we found breaches of legal requirements and the service was issued five warning notices and placed in special measures. The provider did not ensure risks to people were minimised when receiving care. The service did not have suitable arrangements to manage medicines safely. Staff were not given appropriate support through regular supervision and training opportunities. The provider was not providing care in line with people’s consent and with mental capacity legislation. People’s preferences and choice of activity were not consistently accounted for when planning care and not all staff understood the principles of providing a personalised care service. The service did not document complaints made by people or their representatives. The manager did not have a system of carrying out quality checks on the service provided. The provider carried out quality audit visits of the service and found issues not addressed by the manager. People were not asked for feedback by the provider to help shape the service and were not given the opportunity to give their views through meetings. At this inspection we found the previous issues had been addressed.

This inspection took place on the 5, 9, 12, and 16 September 2016 and was unannounced. We found significant improvements had been made and so the service is no longer in special measures.

There was a registered manager at this service. 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.

The provider had a recruitment system in place to ensure the suitability of staff working at the service and there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff knew how to report concerns or abuse. Risk assessments were carried out and management plans put in place to enable people to receive safe care. There were effective and up to date systems in place to check and maintain the safety of the premises. The provider had systems in place to ensure the safe management and administration of medicines.

Staff received appropriate support through supervisions and training opportunities. Appropriate applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for and authorised. People were offered a choice of nutritious food and drink and were involved in meal preparation. People had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their day to day health needs.

We observed staff treating people in a respectful and caring manner. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and were knowledgeable about assisting people to maintain their independence.

Staff knew the people they were supporting including their preferences to ensure a personalised service was provided. A variety of activities were offered which included trips outside of the home. The service dealt with complaints in accordance with their policy and timescales.

The provider held regular meetings for staff and for people who used the service. People were given the opportunity to complete satisfaction surveys. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement.