Hendra Court

Updated 1 February 2023

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

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 carried out by one inspector 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

Hendra Court is a ‘care home' with nursing. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and we looked at both during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We also reviewed information that we held about the service such as notifications. We used information sent to us by the provider in their PIR. A PIR is information providers send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with the registered manager, the clinical lead, the administrator, six staff and seven relatives. We spoke with two people living at the service. 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. We reviewed a range of records. We looked at three peoples care plans and the medicine records for 29 people. We looked at records in relation to staff training and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Also, a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including audits, and minutes of meetings were reviewed.

Updated 1 February 2023

About the service

Hendra Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 48 people. The service provides support to people living with mental health conditions and dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff worked within the principles of the MCA and care plans guided staff to help build independence wherever possible.

People received their medicines in a safe and caring way.

The service was in a COVID-19 outbreak at the time of this inspection and staffing levels had been put under pressure at this time. However, the registered manager and clinical lead had managed to cover most shifts using agency staff.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs and ensure their safety.

The service had some vacant posts at this time. Recruitment of new staff was in progress. Processes in place helped ensure safe recruitment.

Risks were identified, assessed and monitored.

The provider had effective safeguarding systems in place and staff knew what actions to take to help ensure people were protected from harm or abuse.

We looked at infection prevention and control and found we were mostly assured that the provider was protecting people, staff and visitors from the risk of infection. The storage of aprons was identified as inappropriate and was addressed during the inspection.

The registered manager and the clinical lead had effective oversight of the service and were very knowledgeable about the needs of people they supported. They were passionate and motivated to provide the best level of care possible.

Staff and most relatives told us they thought the service was well run and that both management and staff were approachable. One relative told us they felt that communication could be improved.

Feedback on the food was mixed. One relative told us that meals were not always hot when delivered. Another relative told us, “The food always looks good and (Persons’ name) has a good appetite so likes a good plateful. They have put on weight since they moved there.”

Relatives told us, “(Persons’ name) used to be florist. The activity coordinator often sends me cards and photographs when (Persons’ name) has taken part is flower arranging. It is lovely” and “There is always some activity or board game going on, it was one of the things that helped us decide on Hendra Court. People are not just left to sleep in chairs all day.”

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. Relatives were kept informed of any changes in people’s needs or incidents that occurred.

People had been asked for their views and experiences of the service provided. Response had been mainly positive. Where concerns were raised, the provider and registered manager took steps to help resolve the matter.

The registered manager and clinical lead worked together to keep up to dates with developments in practice. All the staff team worked closely with local health and social care professionals.

For more information, please read the detailed findings section of this report. If you are reading this as a separate summary, the full report can be found on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating

Rating at last inspection was Good, published 23 July 2018. At this inspection the rating stayed the same.

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Recommendations

We have made recommendations in relation to the monitoring of potential fire and infection risks. We will check if the provider has acted on any recommendations at our next inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.