Quay Court Care Centre

Updated 27 September 2017

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.

The inspection took place on 1 and 4 September 2017 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we looked at the information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR), notifications, previous inspection reports, safeguarding and quality assurance reports and feedback from Devon County Council commissioners and community health professionals. A notification is information about specific events, which the service is required to send us by law. The PIR 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 looked at a range of records related to the running of the service. These included staff recruitment records, staff rotas, staff supervision and training records, equipment maintenance and servicing records, medicine records and quality monitoring audits.

We looked at the care provided to people and looked at records relating to their care. These included four care plan files, daily reports, risk assessments and records of visits from health professionals. During our inspection we spoke with seven people who lived in the home, four relatives and friends and two health professionals who were visiting the home during our inspection. After the inspection a relative contacted us by e mail. We also spoke with the provider, the area manager, the registered manager, quality assurance manager, and nine members of staff. We also observed staff supporting people in the communal areas, including support to people at lunchtimes.

Updated 27 September 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 1 and 4 September 2017. The service was previously inspected on 9 and 10 June 2015 when the service was rated as ‘Good’ overall. However, we found some minor concerns relating to the administration of medicines. We also carried out a focussed inspection on 24 August 2016 to look at the way people’s care needs were being planned and responded to. We made a recommendation regarding record keeping. At this inspection we found actions had been taken to address the issues we found at the previous inspections and there were no breaches of regulations. People received a good service.

Quay Court Care Centre is a residential care home which provides personal care for a maximum of 38 people. It does not provide nursing care. People who live at the home access healthcare through the local community healthcare services. The home is owned by the Devon Care Group, and is part of a group of eight care homes. At the time of this inspection there were 29 people living there.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 told us they were happy living at Quay Court Care Centre. Comments included, “I think they are absolutely super. They are very attentive,” and “I love it. It is perfectly alright. They feed me. I have a nice room. I have a bath. What more do I want?”

People received a safe service. At the time of this inspection there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely. Call bells were answered promptly and people told us staff responded quickly if they requested assistance. We saw staff sitting and talking to people, and assisting people to move around the home in a relaxed and supportive manner. Routines were carried out in a timely way.

Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and measures had been put in place to reduce risks where possible. Risks such as choking, weight loss, dehydration, and pressure sores were assessed and reviewed regularly, and measures put in place to reduce the risks where possible. For example, where people were at risk of falling, the risks had been assessed, medical assessment and treatment sought, and equipment provided if necessary.

Medicines were stored and administered safely by competent and trained staff. Records of medicines received into the home, administered to people, and unwanted medicines returned to the pharmacy were accurate. There were systems in place to audit the records which meant that any errors were picked up and addressed promptly.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed before new staff began working in the service. There had been a low turnover of staff, with many of the staff having worked in the home for a number of years. The registered manager had been recently recruited and had begun to put in place a number of changes and improvements. These included regular supervision sessions for all staff. Staff meetings were held regularly and there were handover sessions at the start of each shift to ensure staff received information on any changes in people’s needs. Staff told us they felt well supported. Staff received training and updates on a range of health and safety topics, and other topics relevant to the needs of the people living there. Comments from staff included “The training here is excellent!”

People lived in home that was well maintained, clean and safe. All areas were bright, modern, attractively decorated and comfortably furnished. There were safe patio areas and gardens where people could sit outside in warmer weather. All equipment was regularly checked and serviced.

People received food and drinks to meet their individual dietary needs. All of the people we spoke with were complimentary about the meals. Comments included, “It’s all home-made. We’ve got a really good cook. You always get a really nice meal,” and “I think the food is very good. You get a choice of two selections. If you want anything special they try their hardest to get it.” People were offered a selection of drinks and snacks throughout the day and staff understood the importance of maintaining people’s hydration levels.

People told us the staff were always kind and treated them with respect. Comments included, “I think they are absolutely super. They are very attentive,” “Staff are very, very kind,” and “They try and help you out all they can. They are very good.” Visitors also praised the staff and talked about their kindness and caring manner. People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their lives.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans drawn up which provided detailed information to staff about the way the person wanted to be cared for. The care plans had been reviewed and provided information on all aspects of each person’s health and personal care needs and any risks. Each person’s capacity to make important decisions about their lives had been assessed, and staff had received training and guidance on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people were unable to make decisions, and where people’s liberty was restricted to protect them from harm, applications had been submitted to the local authority in accordance with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw staff offering people choices, and respecting people’s decisions about the things they wanted to do.

Staff understood each person’s social needs and how they wanted to be supported to remain actively involved both in the community, and in the home. Family and friends were welcomed and kept fully involved. Staff took people out into town, to the shops and the local library. People attended local groups. There were regular visits to the home by members of the local community such as local schools, churches and entertainers. Staff also provided a range of individual and group activities to suit all interests and preferences. People told us they enjoyed the group activities and comments included “They are lots of fun.”

People knew how to make a complaint and told us they would not hesitate to speak to a senior member of staff or the provider if they had any concerns. A record of compliments and complaints had been maintained. These showed that complaints had been listened to, investigated, and actions taken to address the issues. There was an open and welcoming culture in the home and people’s views were regularly sought, and any suggestions or comments acted upon.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure people received a good service. A senior member of staff was employed to monitor the quality of the service. They spent time speaking with people every week to make sure they were happy with the service. Any suggestions or requests were actioned immediately. There was an ethos of continuous improvement. All aspects of the management of the home were monitored, and improvements carried out promptly where necessary. The provider and staff demonstrated a pride in the service and a determination to make sure people received the best possible service.