Archived: Pretoria Court Complex Care Home

Updated 20 March 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 12 and 13 January 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. The inspection was led by a single Adult Social Care inspector. The inspection also included a specialist advisor. This is a person who has personal experience of working and caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their area of expertise is with people with complex physical and neurological care needs.

Before we visited the home we checked the information that we held about this location and the service provider. We checked all safeguarding’s raised and enquires received. No concerns had been raised.

We also contacted professionals involved in caring for people who used the service, including Healthwatch, commissioners of services and safeguarding staff. No concerns were raised by any of these professionals. During our inspection we observed how the staff interacted with people who used the service. We looked at how people were supported during their lunch. We did this to help us see what people's mealtime experiences were. This included looking at the support that was given to people by the staff. We also reviewed four people’s care records, staff training records, and records relating to the management of the service such as audits, surveys and policies.

We spoke with ten people who used the service and three relatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, one nursing staff, three care workers, a house keeper handyman and the cook.

We looked at the procedures the service had in place to deal effectively with untoward events, near misses and emergency situations in the community.

For this inspection, the provider was not asked to complete 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 planned to make.

Updated 20 March 2015

This inspection took place on 12 and 13 January 2015 and was unannounced. Pretoria Court complex provides care and accommodation for up to 24 people. The home specialises in the care of people who have complex physical and neurological conditions. On the day of our inspection there were a total of 22 people using the service.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During our inspection there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff Interacted with people in a friendly and respectful manner. One person told us, “I feel very safe living here. The staff are wonderful people. I was previously in a council run home that closed and it wasn’t a patch on this one.”

Staff and visitors we spoke with described the management of the home as open and approachable.

Throughout the day we saw that people and staff appeared very comfortable and relaxed with the staff and the registered manager on duty.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. We discussed DoLS with the provider and looked at records. We found the provider was following the requirements of DoLS.

Staff we spoke with said they received appropriate training. We saw records to support this. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. We spoke with eight staff and all were clear about how to report any concerns. Staff said they were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected.

Throughout the day we saw staff interacting with people in a caring and professional way. We saw a member of staff supporting one person with their mobility. They were interacting happily and laughing together. We saw another two staff assisting a person after having a shower. The person being assisted and both staff were singing at the top of their voices and were having a great time. We noted that throughout the day when staff offered support to people they always respected their wishes.

People who were unable to verbally express their views appeared comfortable with the staff that supported them. We saw people smiling and happily engaging with staff when they were approached.

We saw there was a weekly activity programme and records showed there were two activity co-ordinators who supported people to take part in group activities or on a one to one basis. We saw activities were personalised and we saw that people made suggestions about activities and outings at regular meetings.

People told us they were treated with respect and privacy was upheld. People received a wholesome and balanced diet and at times convenient to them.

We saw the provider had policies and procedures for dealing with medicines and these were adhered to. The provider had an effective complaints procedure which people felt they were able to use. We saw people who used the service were supported and protected by the provider’s recruitment policy and practices.

The home was clean and equipment used was regularly serviced.

The provider had a quality assurance system, based on seeking the views of people, their relatives and other health and social care professionals. There was a systematic cycle of planning, action and review, reflecting aims and outcomes for people who used the service.

Staff told us they received regular supervision. We saw records to support this.

We found that people who used the service and others were not fully protected from adequate maintenance of the premises where the regulated activity is carried on.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Summary of findings