- Homecare service
Ladyslaude Court
All Inspections
26 October 2017
During a routine inspection
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.
People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.
There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Staff received an induction and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current best practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions.
At the time of the inspection no one was receiving support to manage their medicines. However, there were policies and procedures in place to enable this to be carried out safely when required.
People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.
At the time of the inspection, no one required support with their meals
Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People were involved in the planning of their care and support.
People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.
People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.
People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.
Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.
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 support this practice.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
15 July 2015
During a routine inspection
Ladyslaude Court provides care and support to people in their own homes. The service is provided within a supported living environment, next to another Methodist Homes service within Bedford. At the time of our inspection, care and support was being provided to three people.
The inspection was announced and took place on 15 July 2015.
The service had a registered manager. 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 were protected from abuse and felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and reporting procedures.
Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and were detailed clearly within people’s care plans. Staff used these to assist people to remain as independent as possible.
There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed.
There were suitable arrangements for the safe management of medicines.
Staff received regular training and support to develop their skills and to keep them up-to-date with current practice.
Consent for care was sought by staff on a daily basis and had been recorded in people’s care plans.
We found that, if appropriate, when people lacked capacity to make their own decisions, consent had been obtained in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.
People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and they were supported to make choices about their food and drink if this was an assessed part of their package of care.
People were supported to attend health appointments when required and to see health and social care professionals as and when needed.
Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion and cared for them according to their individual needs.
Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.
Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences and we received positive feedback from relatives about the service provided by staff.
People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to, and were confident that the service would listen to them.
People were encouraged to have their say about how the quality of services could be improved and were positive about the leadership provided by the manager.
We found that a system of audits, and reviews were also used to good effect in monitoring performance and managing risks.
The service benefitted from good leadership and staff were positive in their desire to provide good quality care for people.
14 January 2014
During an inspection looking at part of the service
We found that the service had reviewed its quality monitoring processes. For example, regular spot checks and staff meetings were now undertaken. People were provided with the opportunity to comment about the care provided. Records relating to people's care, support and treatment were now regularly monitored to ensure that the care they received was safe and effective.
31 October 2013
During a routine inspection
People said staff respected their privacy and dignity and they were happy with the care provided. People told us that they had been able to choose the times they wished staff to visit. A person using the service said, 'The times staff arrive to assist me are variable. Sometimes I have a lie in and they tend to come back later.' A relative of a person who use the service said, 'The care my'receives is first class. The staff do more and above their call of duty.'
We found that people's needs had been assessed to ensure the care they received was safe and effective.
The service had arrangements in place to ensure that people were safeguarded against the risk of abuse. Staff had been provided with training on how to respond appropriately when it was suspected that abuse had occurred or was at risk of occurring.
We found the service had procedures in place to ensure that people were protected against the risk of acquiring a health care associated infection.
The service ensured that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. We found however that staff supervision and appraisal was irregular.
We found the service did not have effective systems in place to assess and monitor the care provided to people. Therefore, it was not clear if people's opinions influenced change or improvements to the service delivery.