Archived: Lion Court

Updated 26 October 2016

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 took place on 9, 17, 18, 19 and 22 August 2016 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice was given to ensure someone would be available as a registered manager was not in post.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection the registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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 also reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We contacted the local authority safeguarding and quality monitoring teams to discuss any areas of concern.

We spent time observing interactions between people and staff within their own homes.

We also spent time looking at records, which included the care records for 12 people. These included care plans, risk assessments and daily records. We looked at recruitment records for 20 members of staff. The training, supervision and appraisal records for 20 members of staff were also reviewed. Other records relating to the management of the service were looked at.

We spoke with the head of operations and quality, the nominated individual, the safeguarding lead, the compliance coordinator, a HR representative, two area coordinators, four team leaders and 16 support workers. We visited 24 people living in their own homes and spoke to six relatives by telephone following the inspection.

Updated 26 October 2016

This inspection took place on 9, 17, 18, 19 and 22 August 2016.

Lion Court is a domiciliary care agency and is registered to provide personal care to people with learning disabilities and/or mental health needs. Many of the people who access the service live in a tenancy and have twenty four hour support. There were 335 people receiving support at the time of the inspection.

The service did not have a registered manager in place at the time of the inspection. A recruitment process had commenced. 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.

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All staff were clear about how to report concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

People were protected by the registered provider’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.

People were supported to take their medicines by staff that were appropriately trained. People received care and support from regular staff that knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s individual needs.

Before people started using the service their needs were assessed to ensure the service could meet them. Following the assessments personalised care plans were developed with the person and their relatives, where appropriate, to agree how the care and support would be provided.

Care plans provided staff with clear direction and guidance about how to meet people’s individual needs. These were regularly reviewed and updated.

People’s risks were anticipated, identified and monitored. Staff managed risk effectively and supported people’s decisions, so they had as much control and independence as possible.

People said they would not hesitate to speak to any member of staff if they had concerns about the service they received. People and their relatives knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to. We saw records that demonstrated the complaints procedure had been followed.

There was a management structure within the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

There were quality assurance systems in place to identify any areas for improvement for staff.