Background to this inspection
Updated
23 September 2021
The inspection
This was a targeted inspection to check on specific concerns we had about people’s falls and moving and handling practices.
As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.
Inspection team
The inspection was carries out by an inspector, a specialist advisor and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Service and service type
Lord Harris Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a 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 had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
This inspection was unannounced.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we held and had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority, safeguarding team and other professionals who work with the service. We checked information held by Companies House and the Information Commissioner’s Office. We looked at the content of the provider’s website. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke with four people and a relative about their experience of the care and support provided. We spoke with registered manager and assistant director of quality and governance. We also spoke with the clinical lead, a registered nurse, the facilities manager and a care worker. We received written feedback from the local authority and commissioning teams. We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and medicines administration records. A variety of records relating to the safety of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We requested and received quality assurance and other governance records. We held a telephone conference with the registered manager and assistant director of quality and governance to discuss accidents and incidents.
Updated
23 September 2021
This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 17 and 18 October 2017. Lord Harris Court is a care home with nursing which is registered to provide care for up to 90 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 85 people resident in the service on the days of the inspection visits. Some people who live in the home are self-funding (pay for their own care) whilst others have financial support from the local authority. This is the first inspection of the service which was registered in October 2016 when the provider changed.
The service did not have a registered manager, at the time of the inspection visits. The provider was actively recruiting to the post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 service provided staff with training to assist them to keep people, staff and visitors to the service as safe as possible. People were protected from all types of abuse and/or poor practice by staff who knew what action to take if they had any concerns about people’s safety or treatment. Health and safety policies and procedures were followed and ensured that as far as possible people who lived in, worked in or visited the service were safe. Any risks to safety were identified and managed to minimise them.
People were provided with staff who had been recruited through reliable recruitment processes which ensured that as far as possible they were suitable to provide safe care to people. However, there were a large number of temporary staff used. People were not confident with the care provided by some temporary staff specifically those who covered night shifts. Improvements were needed to the way night care was monitored. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. People were not always supported to take their medicines safely and whilst improvements had been made further improvement was needed in this area.
People were provided with effective care that respected their diversity, preferences and choices and met their needs. People were supported to make decisions and choices about their care. Staff upheld people’s legal and human rights with regard to decision making and choice.
People’s rights were protected by a management and staff team who understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005). This legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. 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.
People’s needs were met by a caring staff team who worked together in the best interests of the people they offered care to. Staff built positive relationships with people and others who were important to them. People’s individuality and differences were recognised and respected and they were treated with kindness, respect and dignity at all times. Any special needs were taken into account and people were offered the appropriate care.
People were offered a variety of well organised and meaningful activities which enhanced their lifestyle. They were encouraged to enjoy and participate in them by specialised staff.
The service was well-led by an interim manager, in the absence of a registered manager. The management team were described as open, approachable and supportive by the majority of the staff. The service had a large number of ways to monitor and assess the quality of care they offered. Any shortfalls or improvements needed were identified and acted upon.