Archived: Hevercourt

Updated 2 November 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 unannounced inspection took place on 6 October 2016. Two inspectors undertook the inspection.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that occurred at the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that requires providers to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to inform the planning of the inspection.

During the inspection, we spoke with nine people who used the service and six relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, a volunteer, ten care staff and the chef. We also spoke with two directors, two community nurses and a GP who were visiting the service.

We reviewed 12 people’s care records and their medicine administration records. We looked at 12 staff records which included recruitment, training, supervision and appraisals. We looked at staff duty rotas, records of complaints and safeguarding incidents. We looked at monitoring reports on the quality of the service and other records relating to the management of the service.

We undertook general observations of how people were supported and received their care in the service. In addition, we 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.

After the inspection we received feedback from two healthcare professionals.

Updated 2 November 2016

Hevercourt provides personal care and accommodation for up to 46 people. Some of the people live with dementia. On the day of the inspection, 40 people were using the service.

This unannounced inspection took place on 6 October 2016. This is the first inspection of the service since their registration in January 2016.

The service has 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.

People received safe care and support. The registered manager assessed risks to people and put plans in place for staff on how to keep them safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse to minimise the risk of harm to people. Staff managed and administered people’s medicines safely as prescribed. Staff were assessed to ensure they complied with the provider’s procedures on managing people’s medicines.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s individual needs. Staff were recruited safely through a robust recruitment procedure. The registered manager supported staff in their roles. Staff had one to one supervisions and annual appraisal to reflect on their practice. Staff received relevant training to equip them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their work.

Staff understood how to communicate information to people in a way that reflected their needs and preferences. Staff respected people’s choices. People received the support they required to pursue their interests. People liked taking part in the various activities offered at the service and in the community. Staff engaged people on one to one or group activities to reduce the risk of isolation and boredom.

People and their relatives were happy with the care people received. Staff were patient when they supported people. Staff knew people well and had developed positive relationships with them. People received the support they required to maintain relationships that were important to them. Staff knew how to treat people with respect and upheld their dignity and privacy.

The registered manager held meetings with people and their relatives and obtained their views about the service. The service acted on people’s feedback to improve their quality of care. Staff supported people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff respected and promoted people’s rights and did not deprive them of their liberty without authorisation.

The service was flexible and responded positively to people’s requests. Staff regularly reviewed people’s health and the support they needed. Care plans reflected people’s current level of needs and the support required to meet them.

Staff knew people’s food likes and dislikes and met their preferences in relation to their dietary needs. People enjoyed the choice of nutritious and freshly home cooked food offered at the service.

People had their health care needs met. Staff monitored people’s health and made timely referrals to health care professionals for specialist advice. The registered manager monitored accidents and put plans in place to reduce the risk of recurrence. Staff understood procedures to follow in case of an emergency to keep people safe.

People knew how to make a complaint and felt confident the service would resolve any concerns they had promptly. The registered manager and provider carried out checks on the quality of the service and made improvements to the service and quality of care as required.