Regents Court Care Home

Safe - This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. We assessed a total of 8 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was inadequate. At this assessment significant improvements were found and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations and this key question has changed to good. However, we did find that more regular checks were required to ensure safety aspects such as window restrictors remained in good working order and in line with current legislation.

People felt safe and supported by the staff. Staff understood their responsibilities and how to keep people safe and knew how to report concerns. The registered manager understood their safeguarding responsibilities and how to protect people from abuse. People's care had been planned and potential risks to people had been identified, with mitigation in place to protect people from potential harm. There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. People's medicines were managed and stored in a safe way. The home was clean and staff followed safe infection control practices.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people's care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. We assessed a total of 5 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was inadequate. At this assessment significant improvements were found and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations and this key question has changed to good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this.

People had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. People’s care, support and treatment reflected their needs and any protected equality characteristics. The provider worked well with other services to ensure people remained at the centre of their care. The registered manager and provider had driven a culture of improvement, by exploring best practice. However, we did signpost the registered manager to further information where people required a textured modified diet. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did support this practice.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We assessed a total of 5 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. At this assessment improvements were found and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations and this key question has changed to good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this.

People told us staff were kind and treated them well. Relatives felt the staff cared for their family member in a caring and supportive way. Staff treated people as individuals and respected the choices they made. Staff treated people with care and respect and maintained their dignity.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people's needs. We assessed a total of 5 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. At this assessment improvements were found, this key question has now changed to good. This meant people's needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People's care was delivered in a timely way, with any changes in care being communicated clearly to the staff team. People were supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them. People engaged in activities that were individualised to them. People had access to information about how to raise a complaint. Where complaints had been raised these had been responded to in line with the provider's policy. People's end of life care needs were met in line with their preferences in a respectful and dignified way.

Well-Led - this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. We assessed a total of 5 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was inadequate. At this assessment improvements were found and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations and this key question has changed to requires improvement. This meant the service was well managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care, however audits and checks required strengthening and time was needed to ensure these were embedded into practice to continually drive improvement.

People and relatives told us the service had improved since our last inspection. Staff told us there had been improvements with the leadership which was working much better. People, relatives and staff felt the registered manager was visible within the home and listened to people's and staff's views about the way the service was run.