Archived: Connaught Court

Updated 2 November 2015

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.

This inspection took place on 29 and 30 July 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of three adult social care (ASC) inspectors from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and two experts 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. The experts-by-experience who assisted with this inspection had knowledge and experience relating to older people and those living with dementia.

Before this inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered provider, information we had received from the City of York (CYC) Contracts and Monitoring Department and CYC Safeguarding Team. We did not ask the registered provider to submit a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and quality manager. We also spoke with ten staff and then spoke in private with six visitors and nine people who used the service. We spent time in the office looking at records, which included the care records for five people who used the service, the recruitment, induction, training and supervision records for three members of staff and records relating to the management of the service. We spent time observing the interaction between people, relatives and staff in the communal areas and during mealtimes. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) on one unit. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 2 November 2015

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 29 and 30 July 2015.

Connaught Court is a care home owned by the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution (RMBI). It provides residential and nursing care to 90 men and women who are freemasons, or their dependants. They can also provide care to people living with dementia. The home is situated in Fulford on the outskirts of York.

The service is provided within two properties on the same site; the main house which has two wings and a separate bungalow. The first wing of the house has three floors; Ebor (ground floor residential care), Knavesmire (first floor dementia care) and Yorvik (second floor residential care). The second wing has two floors; Viking (ground floor nursing care) and Fairfax (first floor residential care). The bungalow (known in the service as Fred Crossland House) has 10 beds and supports people living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 89 people using the service; 49 residential, 15 nursing and 25 living with dementia.

At the last inspection on 8 and 9 October 2014 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to ‘Need to consent’ and this action has been completed. After the comprehensive inspection on 8 and 9 October 2014 the registered provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirement in relation to the breach of regulation. Their action plan stated that the service would be compliant by 31 March 2015.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and there was a registered manager at this service. 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 told us that they felt safe living at the home. We found that staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes. Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.

There was a strong emphasis on the importance of eating and drinking well. People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and they told us they were satisfied with the meals provided by the home.

People had their health and social care needs assessed and plans of care were developed to guide staff in how to support people. The plans of care were individualised to include preferences, likes and dislikes. People who used the service received additional care and treatment from health professionals based in the community.

People spoken with said staff were caring and they were happy with the care they received. They had access to community facilities and most participated in the activities provided in the service.

Staff received a range of training opportunities and told us they were supported so they could deliver effective care; this included staff supervision, appraisals and staff meetings.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service, supported the staff team and ensured that people who used the service were able to make suggestions and raise concerns. We saw from recent audits that the service was meeting their internal quality standards.