Weavers Court

People’s experience of using this service:

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to maintain choice, control and involvement in their care and daily routine.

Care plans indicated people’s individual preferences.

People were supported with their medicines where needed. There had been some medicine administration errors over the past year, however staff were being supported to address this through increased training and competency assessments.

Staff were kind, caring and promoted people’s dignity.

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.

The registered manager provided staff with leadership and was visible and supportive. Staff were motivated and enjoyed working at the service.

Information from audits, incidents and quality checks was used to drive continuous improvements to the service people received.

Rating at last inspection: The service was rated ‘Good’ at our last inspection on 7 and 10 October 2016. The report following that inspection was published on 3 November 2016.

Why we inspected: This inspection took place as part of our planned programme of comprehensive inspections.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service according to our inspection schedule.

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

Weavers Court provides personal care to people living in their own flats on the same site. At the time of our visits, 41 people were residing in their own tenancies, the majority of whom required some support. The support available varied from assistance with washing, dressing, mobility, eating and maintaining continence, to prompting and support with managing medicines or occasional additional help if people were unwell.

There was a registered manager in post, who completed registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in November 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 provider’s representatives had identified that improvements were needed to the safety of the service to promote better management of medicines. They had introduced increased monitoring and were arranging for additional training and support to help drive improvement in this area.

Other aspects of the safety of the service were managed well. Staff were clear about their obligations to report any concerns possible harm or abuse and people felt safe from harm or abuse by staff. Risks to people's safety were assessed and with guidance about how staff should promote people's safety. There were enough staff who were recruited in a way that helped to protect people from the risk of the service employing staff who were not suitable to work in care.

Staff had a good knowledge of people's needs and wishes so that they could support people competently and in the way they preferred. They understood the importance of seeking people's consent to deliver care. The management team knew what to do if there were concerns about people's capacity to make informed decisions. Staff new to their roles were supported by more experienced colleagues and their progress through induction was monitored by the management team. Staff felt well supported in their roles and able to raise any concerns or queries they had.

People who needed support to eat and drink enough were given this. If people needed or wished for assistance to make appointments with health professionals, staff provided it. They were alert to changes in people's health and ensured they sought advice promptly to promote people's wellbeing. They acted on advice they were given about promoting people's health and welfare.

Staff supported people with kindness and with respect for their dignity. There were isolated lapses in the way staff protected people's privacy when they called on people in their flats. However, people were generally satisfied with the way staff behaved towards them. They were involved in decisions about how they wanted their care to be delivered and family members were kept informed if this was necessary and the person wished for them to be involved. People's independence was promoted so that they were encouraged to do what they could for themselves and staff supported them with what they could not manage or where they needed reassurance.

People's needs were assessed and staff understood how they were expected to offer support to meet the requirements of each person. The management team was in the process of updating records where this was necessary to ensure they reflected people's current needs. They were working with other professionals to ensure that they were able to meet the needs of people who were accepted into the service.

Although not everyone could remember being given information about what to expect if they made a complaint, they were confident they could raise concerns with the manager and have them addressed. Complaints were followed up and investigated appropriately so that improvements could be made if they were needed.

The registered manager had fostered an open culture where people and staff could express their views and suggestions. Staff valued the approach of the management team and were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The management team implemented effective mechanisms for monitoring the quality of the service and driving improvements where these were needed.

Most of the people we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care they received. One person said, 'I have no complaints.' Another person said, 'I am happy with the care.' A further person said, 'They are there if you need them, they are very, very good.'

However, people and the staff told us that there were not always enough staff to assist people when they needed it. We were made aware that the provider was aware of this issue and had plans in place to increase the number of care hours given to people to ensure that their needs were met in a more timely manner.

People were asked for their consent before any personal care was given. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of how to reduce the risk of spreading infection.

The required checks were being completed on the staff before they started working at the service to ensure they were of good character. The staff told us they felt supported by the management team.

The service had an effective system in place to monitor the quality of care they provided.

Policies and processes were in place in relation to medication management however, discrepancies were found in relation to the medication records. This meant that we could not be assured that medicines had been administered as prescribed and intended by the prescriber.

We found that the staff were well trained and knowledgeable and that there were enough of them to meet people's care needs. People who used the service knew how to complain if they wanted to and we saw that they were able to give their feedback regularly.