Archived: Popham Court

Popham Court is a ‘care home’ for up to 74 people. The home is made up of two buildings. Popham House provides accommodation and nursing care and The Court provides care to people who do not require nursing care. The home specialises in the care of older people.

At the time of the inspection there were 61 people living at the home. 29 people were living at Popham House and 32 people at The Court.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The registered manager and deputy manager had been in post for approximately six months. In this time they had carried out audits and reintroduced systems to make improvements to the quality of care and seek people’s views.

Further improvements were needed to make sure senior staff were clear about their roles and were effectively monitoring the day to day management of people’s care. At this inspection we found there were a lack of routine checks in place to make sure people received good quality care and support.

People had care plans which were personal to them but did not always give clear information about their up to date needs and wishes. This placed people at risk of receiving inappropriate care for their current needs.

People did not have regular access to activities and social stimulation to promote their well-being. At the time of the inspection there were no activity workers at the home and other staff had not ensured people were able to continue to take part in social activities.

People who were able to express their views told us staff respected their personal routines and lifestyle choices. People said they would be comfortable to make a complaint. One person told us, “The staff are very easy to talk to. I could say if I wasn’t happy.”

People told us they were happy with the care they received. One person told us, “I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else.” One visitor said “It’s extremely good here. It has a nice calm atmosphere and the staff seem very calm and caring.”

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 worked in accordance with up to date guidance to make sure people’s legal rights were protected.

The staff ensured people had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. One person told us, “They get the doctor or a nurse to see you if you need it.”

People received their medicines safely from staff who had been trained to carry out this task. Staff carried out risk assessments with people who wanted to self-administer their medicines and maintain their independence.

People told us they felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. People said staff were kind and caring and respected their privacy and dignity.

People were confident that staff had the skills needed to care for them. One person told us, “I definitely trust them [staff.] They are very good at their jobs.” Another person commented, “I feel very well looked after here. I couldn’t wish for better attention, they seem very on the ball.”

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Popham Court is registered to provide care and accommodation to up to 74 people. The home is spread over two buildings. One building ‘The Court’ provides personal care and the other building known as ‘Popham House' provides nursing care. The home specialises in the care of older people. At the time of the inspection there were 62 people living at the home. 35 people receiving nursing care at Popham House and 27 people at The Court

The last inspection of the home was carried out in June 2014. No concerns were identified with the care being provided to people at that inspection.

There is a registered manager in post. 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 said they were able to make choices about their day to day lives but we found not everyone was fully involved in the planning or review of their care. This could mean that people were unable to voice their opinions or wishes about how they wanted their care to be provided.

People told us they received care and support from kind and caring staff. Throughout this inspection we saw people were supported in a friendly and gentle way. There were enough staff to make sure people were not rushed. Personal care was provided to people in a way that respected their privacy and dignity. One person told us “I couldn’t be better looked after. All the staff are so good.” Another person said “They are all so kind and nice to me. I am very happy here.”

People’s health needs were monitored and they had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. Incidents and accidents were analysed to ensure people received the support they required to maintain their health and well-being.

People had their nutritional needs assessed and received meals in accordance with their needs. Where people required physical assistance to eat this was provided in a dignified manner. People were complimentary about the food served in the home. Comments included; “The food is good and I’m a fussy eater” and “There’s always plenty to eat and drink.”

People were able to take part in a variety of activities according to their interests and abilities. There was a monthly calendar of events which were reflective of special occasions to help people to continue to orientate themselves to the time of the year. People told us they were free to join in with activities which interested them but there was no pressure to do so. One person said “You can get involved if you want to.” Another person said “I think there’s enough to keep you occupied.”

There were systems in place to minimise risks to people and ensure they received care safely. There was a robust recruitment procedure and risk assessments were carried out where required. Medicines were only administered by senior staff who had been assessed as competent to carry out the task. People told us they felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with any aspect of their care. People were confident that any complaints made would be taken seriously and action would be taken to rectify any shortcomings.

We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. People we spoke with told us that there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person said: 'There seems to be enough staff. I get the help I need.'

There were systems in place to ensure the safety of the building and any equipment used. There were regular health and safety checks including checking the fire alarm system and hot water temperatures. Equipment was regularly checked by staff at the home and serviced by outside contractors.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to support people who were unable to make decisions for themselves. Staff were able to tell us about how they had involved other people in making decisions when someone lacked the capacity to make a decision for themselves.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. While no applications have been submitted relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. People's rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.

Is the service effective?

People said they received effective care and support. One person told us: 'When I was unwell and complained of pain they made sure I had the right treatment.' Another person told us that when they had had a medical emergency the staff 'dealt with it well.'

People told us they continued to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives. One person told us: 'You can choose what you do. I like to do my own thing, they seem happy with that.' Staff informed us that people were able to make choices about what time they got up, when they went to bed and how they spent their day.

Is the service caring?

People told us staff were kind and caring. People said they did not feel that staff ever rushed them and several commented on the patience and kindness of the staff who supported them. One person told us: 'They do the little things that make all the difference.' Another person said: 'They help me with everything. They just couldn't be any better if they tried.'

People we spoke with felt their privacy and dignity was respected. Throughout the inspection we heard and saw staff treating people with respect, asking their views and responding politely to all requests for assistance. One person said: 'All the girls are gentle and kind.'

Is the service responsive?

People received care that was responsive to their individual needs. People we asked were very satisfied with the care and support they received. One person told us: 'The best thing about being here is how you are looked after. I do feel well looked after.' Another person said: 'It's wonderful here. I get all the care and attention I need.'

The home had systems in place to plan and monitor people's individual care and support. Each person had their needs assessed before a placement was offered to ensure the home was able to meet their needs. From the initial assessment a care plan was written to identify how the person's needs would be met.

Staff had a very good knowledge of people's healthcare needs and were able to tell us about how they monitored and treated individual needs.

Is the service well led?

There was a registered manager in place who had many years' experience of caring for older people.

There was a staffing structure in the home which gave clear lines of accountability and responsibility. There was always a senior member of staff on duty to offer advice and support to less experienced staff.

There was a complaints policy in place. We saw that any complaints made were fully investigated and responded to. People we spoke with told us they would be comfortable to make a complaint if they were not happy with any aspect of their care. One person said: 'I am satisfied with everything but if I wasn't I'd complain. I know they would listen.'

People's views were listened to and action was taken to make sure suggestions were put in place where appropriate.

We looked around the home, and spoke with nursing and care staff as well as the registered manager. Staff assisted us to look at the home's various records including electronic care records.

People we spoke with were positive about the support they received. We saw that staff had a pleasant manner and did not hurry people. We found that care was planned and delivered in a way to ensure people's safety and welfare. They were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed and they were cared for in a hygienic environment. They were also protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment. This was because the provider had systems to ensure staff were trained to use it and that regular servicing was carried out, for example.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely to an appropriate standard. One person described the staff as '100 per cent.' However, because accurate and appropriate care records were not always maintained, people were not always protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

The people we spoke with confirmed that they had been involved it their care planning and that staff respected their decisions about what they wanted for support. People also said they were very happy about the care and support provided to them. One person said 'I'm very glad I made the decision to come here, I feel looked after.' Another said about the support they had,' Looked after well.'

We observed afternoon tea and midday mealtimes at the home. We saw that staff supported and encouraged people who needed assistance with their meals or drinks. We observed that staff did not rush people and were patient with them.

One person told us that the home suited them and added 'it's my home.' People told us that staff were supportive and helpful. One person used said,' Staff were lovely.'