Neville Court

Updated 12 January 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 was comprehensive, took place on 21 November 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors 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.

Before the inspection we requested a Provider Information Return (PIR) which was returned to us. This 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 checked information held by the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams in addition to other partner agencies and intelligence received by the Care Quality Commission.

We spoke with nine people using the service and one of their relatives. In addition, we spoke with six staff including two care workers, two nurses, the activity co-ordinator and the registered manager.

We looked at four care records including risk assessments, three staff records including all training records, minutes of resident and staff meetings, complaints, safeguarding records, accident logs, medicine administration records and quality assurance documentation.

Updated 12 January 2018

Neville Court is a purpose built nursing home for 20 people with complex physical, mental health and or behavioural needs. People are supported in two units, each for 10 people. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were safe as there were robust management procedures in place and these were used by staff who knew how to report any concerns promptly. Risks were managed based on personal preference and were focused on promoting positive risk taking as far as possible.

Staffing levels ensured people had choices and options throughout the day. Staff were competent and were skilled in managing people, ensuring their independence was promoted wherever possible.

People were able to eat and drink as they chose and were supported where necessary.

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.

The environment was comfortable and based on people’s own choices of décor and furnishings.

Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion in all interactions with people, and were able to use their skills well in managing more complex behavioural needs. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted.

People had access to the wider community as well as the local one, and staff worked as a team to ensure people could get involved in whatever they chose.

Care records were person-centred and covered all aspects of a person’s support needs, showing a holistic approach.

The home was managed by a competent and experienced manager who had a clear vision and focus which was embedded in the home. Staff felt well supported and we received much positive feedback about the home from relatives.

The registered manager was driven by the need to constantly reflect and ensure the best possible outcomes for people in the home and the quality assurance processes ensured this was evidenced.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.