4 Trinity Court

Updated 1 September 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.

This inspection took place on 7 and 8 August 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out the inspection.

Prior to the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service, this included notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes or events that occur at the service which the provider has a legal duty to inform us about. We reviewed the information sent to us in the 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 covered these areas during our inspection.

During the inspection, we viewed the service and observed how care was provided to people. We spoke with four staff members including the registered manager, two care assistants and a support worker. We also spoke with a visiting advocate. During our visit we were not able to speak with all the people who were present in the service due to communication difficulties. 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. Following the inspection, we spoke with two relatives of people living in the service and one local authority professional.

We reviewed various records of care including three people’s care plans. We also examined medicines documents namely medication administration records (MAR). We read documents including audits and records related to the employment of two staff and the operation of the service.

Updated 1 September 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on the 7 and 8 August 2018. 4 Trinity 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. 4 Trinity Court accommodates up to six people with learning disabilities, older people or those living with dementia in one building. There were six people living there at the time of our visit.

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 can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

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.

People’s safety had been considered by the service, risk assessments both for care and the environment had been completed. These minimised the risk of harm to people. Staff had received training in how to protect people from abuse and guidance for reporting concerns was available.

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. Where required appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been submitted for authorisation. This protected people’s human rights.

Support was offered to staff through training, supervision, appraisals and daily or monthly meetings. Staff told us they felt supported and appeared to be happy with their work. We found the provider needed to increase the availability of training so staff could complete this in a timely way. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

Trained staff administered medicines. We observed there were sufficient numbers of trained and experienced staff to enable people to receive care when they needed it.

People told us the staff were caring, we observed positive and meaningful interactions between staff and people in the home. Systems were in place to ensure the risk of employing unsuitable staff was minimised.

People’s healthcare needs were supported by the staff. We read documentation related to health appointments with external professionals to assist people with their mental and physical health needs.

Care plans documented people’s preferred method of communication. People had access to the information they needed in a way they could understand it. People’s relatives were encouraged, where appropriate, to be involved in the planning and monitoring of the care provided.

Activities were provided for people to participate in. Families and friends were encouraged and supported to maintain contact with people. This protected people from the risk of social isolation.

People were treated equally, regardless of their disability, gender, sexuality, religion, race or age in line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. People’s chosen lifestyles were respected and where staff could offer support to people they did.

People’s nutritional needs were reflected in care plans and we observed staff supporting people to ensure their health and wellbeing was maintained.

Care was provided to people in a way that protected their privacy and dignity. They were respected by staff and treated in a dignified manner. Staff were described as caring by people’s relatives, the registered manager and staff were held in high regard and we received positive comments about the service they provided.

Steps had been taken by the registered manager to review the service, through discussions with staff and people’s relatives, questionnaires and audits. Where appropriate, improvements had been made. This enabled the registered manager to keep an overview of the service and to drive forward improvements when needed.