The Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed 6 quality statements out of 8 within the safe key question. At the last Inspection we found this key question to be Inadequate. We found improvements had been made since the previous inspection on 14 June 2023. The service was no longer in breach of regulations relating to assessing risk, safety monitoring and management, using medicines safely, preventing and controlling infection, staffing and recruitment. In this assessment we found the following areas that require further improvements to be made. Records showed procedures were in place to assess people's capacity and manage Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications, although these were not all up to date, and the principles of the Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA) were not always adhered to. Despite regular checks of the environment being recorded, we found that not all fire doors closed securely, leaving people at increased risk in the event of a fire. Shortfalls were observed on safe staffing processes.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe at The Court, were well cared for by staff that knew them well and they could raise any concerns they had. People told us "Aunt is safe and well looked after, girls are lovely with her, they care for the residents and always try to cheer them up. I can raise concerns if I needed to." And "dad is cared for extremely well, he is well looked after and anything he needs he only has to ask. Dad is really happy and that is due to the care that he receives."

There were systems in place to safeguard people. The provider had relevant safeguarding, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) policies in place and staff had been trained in these areas. Records showed procedures were in place to assess people's capacity and manage DoLS applications, although these were not all up to date, and the principles of the MCA were not always adhered to. A policy was in place regarding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to help guide staff in their practice. Staff had undertaken training in safeguarding, Mental Capacity and DoLS to help ensure they had the required skills and knowledge to support people safely.

Staff were able to describe actions they would take to help maintain people’s safety and well-being. This included making referrals to other health professionals when required, as well as supporting people when they were anxious or distressed. Staff told us they had completed training to help them manage this.

Individual assessments were in place to assess risks to people. People’s care files included completed risk assessments in areas such as falls, skin integrity, nutritional status, moving and handling and malnutrition. There were also individual risk assessments such as for the use of bed rails and fire evacuation, as well as more general risk assessments, such as for the use of a minibus for outings. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly. People’s individual needs were also monitored to ensure the associated risks were managed, such as when people required blood sugars to be monitored for diabetes, or have their diet or fluid intake monitored to ensure they were eating and drinking enough. There were care plans in place that provided information regarding people’s medical health needs, such as diabetes, congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

The service was maintained safely. People told us about the recent renovations and refurbishment of the home and particularly appreciated the new shower. People told us they had access to call bells to call for assistance when needed. A maintenance person was employed and people told us they make any necessary repairs quickly.

Feedback from staff and Leaders told us they believed the environment was safely maintained. They completed fire safety training that included a full simulation annually, as well as training to use equipment such as hoists to support people’s mobility.

We observed that the home had recently been refurbished, which had greatly improved the environment. The fire escape had been repaired and the garden was clear of potential risks. Windows had restrictors on them to prevent risk of accidental falls from height, wardrobes were attached to walls securely and we saw that brakes were on beds to prevent them moving. However, we saw that not all fire doors closed in their rebates securely, posing fire safety risks.

A fire policy was in place to ensure staff knew actions to take in the event of a fire. Improvements had been made to the environment; the fire escape had been repaired and was safe to use and new radiator covers had been installed. However, despite regular checks of the environment being recorded, we found that not all fire doors closed securely, leaving people at increased risk in the event of a fire.

There were enough staff to support people in a timely way. People told us there were enough staff; one person said, "I don't have to wait more than a minute or two." Relatives told us staff were well trained and knew their family member's needs. Comments included, "Staff are brilliant and well trained" and "I have no problems if I am going away now, I know [family member] is well looked after."

Staff told us there were enough staff to support people in a timely way and that they had access to sufficient training that was refreshed regularly. Staff felt well supported and told us they had regular supervisions.

The rota process was observed. A recruitment policy was in place that reflected safe recruitment practices. Staff had received training relevant to their role and had regular supervisions and an appraisal to support them in their role. The staff files reviewed showed that not all safe recruitment processes were followed. For example, there were gaps in staff employment histories that were not explained, interview notes were not detailed and did not contain sufficient evidence that staff had the knowledge and skills required for the post applied for.

The home appeared clean, and people did not raise any concerns regarding the cleanliness of the home. People told us the home was clean and they were happy with the new refurbishment and improvements within the home's environment. People told us “I can get a shower whenever I want. There is a new shower and it is great, nice and warm.” “Refurbishment is good. Home is clean.”

Staff told us they had completed IPC training and had their competency assessed. They told us they always access to enough PPE and had guidance on how to use it. Staff were able to describe practices to prevent the spread of infections.

The home appeared to be clean and well maintained, including the laundry and kitchen. PPE stations were available around the home and were seen to be fully stocked and staff used PPE appropriately. Bathrooms contained liquid soap and paper towels. People living in the home appeared to be well groomed and cared for, and told us they could shower whenever they wanted to.

Staff had completed training in COSHH, Infection Prevention and Control and Food Hygiene. A policy was in place to guide staff in the safe use of personal protective equipment, as well as posters displayed with clear images and guidance on the correct use of PPE. We observed cleaning schedules and the guidance on outbreaks and peoples care files contained personal care plans, providing staff with guidance on what support people needed to meet their personal care needs.

Staff told us they had completed medicine training and have their competency assessed each year. They told us the actions they would take if people refused medicines, how they keep accurate records and described principles of safe medicine administration.

Staff had completed medication training to ensure they had the knowledge to manage medicines safely. Staff had their competency assessed regularly to ensure they remained safe to administer medicines. The provider had a medicine policy in place to guide staff in their practice.