Lawn Court

Updated 3 November 2020

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.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

This inspection took place on 19 October 2020 and was announced.The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 3 November 2020

About the service:

Lawn Court provides accommodation and support for up to 18 adults living with mental health needs, some of whom were also living with substance abuse difficulties, autistic spectrum disorder and other needs. Accommodation is provided over three floors in a large adapted building located in a residential area, close to the centre of Bexhill-On-Sea. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people living at the home, 12 people were receiving regulated services. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care, this is help with tasks related to personal hygiene, medicines and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 18 people. 17 people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people. People were supported to have maximum choice, control and independence.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received high-quality person-centred care. The management and staff team went above and beyond to ensure that people’s care and preferences met their expectations, with people’s wellbeing and independence being at the heart of the service. Activities for people were innovative and highly regarded by people and relatives. The service went the extra mile to ensure that people were involved in their community and empowered in the planning of activities to reduce social isolation and improve well-being. A relative told us, “The care is really good, and staff will do anything, we are really pleased. [Relative] is happy, likes living there and is always positive.”

Staff knew people extremely well and tailored their support accordingly. We observed strong relationships between staff and people due to the continuity of staffing and their approach. People told us they felt safe and knew who to contact if they had any concerns. Systems supported people to stay safe and reduce the risks to them. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and what action to take to keep people safe. There was enough staff to support people safely and the registered manager had safe recruitment procedures and processes in place.

Staff were trained in administering medicines. People knew what their medication was for and told us they felt reassured by the support with their medicines. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. Staff wore gloves and aprons when supporting people.

People were supported to maintain their health and had support to access health care services when they needed to. 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.

People received kind and compassionate care. People and relatives told us staff treated them with kindness and we observed friendly interactions throughout the inspection. People told us, “It’s a nice place to live and there is a good atmosphere.”

The home was well-led, and the provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the standard of care and drive improvement. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the culture of the home and said it was well managed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published on 24 February 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission (CQC) scheduling guidelines for adult social care.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.