Archived: Fontburn Court

Updated 5 January 2018

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.

The inspection took place on 30 November and 6 December 2017, the first day of the inspection was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we were coming.

The first day of the inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience who spoke to people and relatives to gain their opinions and views of the service. An expert by experience is a person who had personal experience of using or caring for someone who used this type of service. The second day of the inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed other information we held about the service and the provider. This included statutory notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, event or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send to CQC within required timescales. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We also contacted the local Healthwatch, the local authority commissioners for the service, the local authority safeguarding team and the clinical commissioning group (CCG). Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

During our inspection we spoke with four people who lived at Fontburn Court. We spoke with six members of staff, including the registered manager, home manager, four care workers. We also spoke with two relatives of people who used the service and one person’s friend.

We looked around the home and viewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included the care records of two people, medicine records of three people, training records, and records in relation to the management of the service.

Updated 5 January 2018

This inspection took place on 30 November and 6 December 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. This was the provider’s first inspection since being registered.

Fontburn Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodated six people in a bungalow situated in its own grounds with an enclosed garden area. Six people were using the service at the time of the inspection.

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.

The registered manager was also responsible for some of the provider’s other locations registered with CQC. Fontburn Court had a home manager who was responsible for the day to day running of the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service could live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People and relatives felt the service was safe. Policies and procedures were in place to keep people safe such as safeguarding, accident and incident policies. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report concerns. People’s medicines were managed safely. Effective infection control measures were in place.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust and included Disclosure and Barring Service checks and references. Staffing levels were appropriate to the needs of the people using the service.

Risk assessments were detailed, person-centred, and gave staff clear guidance about how to help keep people safe. People had personal emergency evacuation plans in place in case of an emergency.

Staff were trained in a range of subjects such as health and safety, first aid and fire safety. Staff had also received training to support them to meet the needs of people who used the service, such as learning disabilities.

Staff received regular supervisions and an annual appraisal which covered their personal development. Staff felt they were well supported by the registered manager and home manager.

People had access to a range of healthcare, such as GPs, occupational therapy and dentistry. Nutritional needs were assessed and people enjoyed a health varied diet.

The premises were well suited to people’s needs, with ample dining and lounge space. Bathrooms were designed to incorporate needs of the people living at the home. The corridors and reception area were spacious for people using mobility equipment.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The atmosphere at the home was warm and welcoming. Relatives and friends felt welcome when visiting with staff offering refreshments and the opportunity to eat with their loved one. People were encouraged to make choices in everyday decisions. Staff provided support and care in a dignified manner, ensuring privacy when necessary.

Person-centred care plans were in place and contained good levels of detailed information. Regular reviews of care plans took place to ensure staff had up to date information.

People enjoyed a range of activities both inside and outside the home. The service had positive links with the community with people accessing local centres, discos and shops.

The provider had a complaints process in place which was accessible to people in a pictorial format.

Staff were extremely positive about the registered manager and the home manager. They confirmed they felt supported and were able to raise concerns with either manager. We observed the registered manager and home manager were visible in the service and found people interacted with them in an open manner.

The quality assurance process included audits of medicines, care plans and health and safety checks. Where necessary actions were set following audits and these were signed off by the registered manager or home manager.