Archived: Rubery Court

A new manager had been in place for four weeks at the time of this inspection and they supported us throughout the day. We spoke with people who used the service, observed their care, spoke with staff and a health professional.

We looked to see if people who used the service were respected and involved in the planning and delivery of their care. We found that systems were in place or being put in place to ensure that people were involved as much as they were able to be.

We found that the care and welfare needs of people who used the service were being met.

At our last inspection in April 2013 we had concerns that the service was not managing safeguarding referrals and internal investigations appropriately. At this inspection we found that the service was following the correct safeguarding procedures.

We previously had concerns that the service was not following the correct recruitment procedures. At this inspection we found that they had implemented a new system to ensure the procedures were followed.

We found that the service had sufficient trained staff to meet the needs of people who used the service.

The new manager showed us that they were working on new systems to monitor the quality of care delivery.

Rubery Court was compliant in the six outcome areas we looked at.

At our last inspection in January 2013 we had concerns about the service not reporting safeguarding incidents. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in this area although we found that the manager was not following appropriate procedures to minimise the risk of abuse to people who used the service.

Previously we had found that people's needs were not being assessed prior to admission to Rubery Court. At this inspection we found that systems were now in place to assess people's needs before agreeing to care being delivered.

We looked to see if people who used the service consented to their care treatment and support. We found the service had processes in place to support people to be involved as much as they were able to be in decisions about their care treatment and support.

We looked at the recruitment process for new members of staff and found the service was not following correct recruitment procedures.

We found that the service had a complaints procedure. We saw that the service dealt with complaints appropriately and contact numbers for the Care Quality Commission were visible within the service for people to use if necessary.

The majority of people who lived at Rubery Court had complex needs and limited communication skills. One person we spoke with told us, "It's ok here". We observed that people were being engaged in activities and one person was waiting to go out with

the support of staff.

On a previous inspection we saw that medication was not being managed appropriately. We found that improvements had been made at this inspection.

We spoke with relatives and health professionals of people who used the service who told us that they were happy with the care that people who used the service received.

Staff we spoke with told us they liked working at Rubery Court and felt supported by their manager. They felt they had sufficient training to complete their care role effectively.

Rubery Court had several vacancies within the residential and supported living areas of the service. We had concerns over the admission process into the service. New referrals into the service were not having their needs assessed prior to admission to ensure they could be cared for appropriately.

We looked at how the service safeguarded people who used the service and found the service had not informed all relevant agencies of suspected abuse.

The service had implemented several quality monitoring tools to monitor the quality of the service being delivered.