Deansfield Court

Updated 12 February 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was 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 6 and 14 December 2018 and was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection, because we needed to be sure people would be in when we visited. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we checked information we held about the service. This included notifications the provider had sent us about events or incidents that occurred and which affected their service or the people who used it. We contacted the local authority’s adult safeguarding and quality monitoring team as well as Healthwatch England, the national consumer champion for health and social care, to ask if they had any information to share.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with five people who used the service and three professionals. We spoke with the registered manager, two team leaders, and four other members of staff.

We checked four people’s care plans, risk assessments, daily notes and medication administration records. We reviewed three staff’s recruitment records, as well as induction, training and supervision records for the staff team. We looked at meeting minutes, quality assurance audits and a selection of other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 12 February 2019

This inspection took place on 6 and 14 December 2018 and was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection, because we needed to be sure people would be in when we visited.

Deansfield Court is registered to provide personal care to older people who may also be living with dementia, a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health needs, a physical disability or sensory impairment.

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Not everyone living at Deansfield Court or using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This was the first inspection of Deansfield Court since its registration in December 2017. At the time of the inspection there were 34 mainly older people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. They had been the registered manager since December 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 registered manager also managed another of the provider’s services and split their time between the two locations. They were supported by two team leaders in the management of the service.

People told us they felt safe with the support that staff provided. Staff were safely recruited and enough staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were trained to recognise and respond to any safeguarding concerns to help keep people safe.

Risk assessments generally contained proportionate information about risks and how these should be managed. We made a recommendation about using nationally recognised evidence based tools to support effective management.

The provider was implementing a new medicine policy and procedure to make sure staff had been given enough information about when to administer ‘as required’ medicines.

Staff completed a comprehensive programme of training. The registered manager monitored staff’s performance and made sure they were supported to learn and develop in the role.

Staff supported people to make sure they ate and drank enough. They shared information and worked with healthcare professionals when needed to make sure people received effective care.

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.

Staff were kind and caring. They treated people with respect and supported people in a way which helped maintain their privacy and dignity.

Staff understood people’s needs and how best to support them. They had developed positive relationships with the people they supported. People benefited from the companionship and person-centred care staff provided. The provider was exploring how to implement good practice guidance relating to end of life care.

People told us the manager was approachable and responsive to feedback. There were systems in place to make sure any complaints were investigated and a response provided.

Staff worked well as a team and were well-supported by the management of the service. There was a positive and person-centred culture. People enjoyed staff’s company and benefited from the wider community and events on offer at Deansfield Court.

The manager completed a range of audits to monitor the quality of the service provided. We recommended reviewing auditing of risks.