At our last inspection in April 2016 we found the service to have a lack of managerial oversight and leadership within the service as a whole. The provider sent us an action plan on how they would address concerns that had been highlighted at this inspection. We also met with the management team of the service to discuss the service’s compliance history.

The service did not have a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. The regional management team informed that recruitment to the post was currently underway. The provider advised that they were not going to rush this process, as they wanted to get the right person for the service. In the interim the service had a project manager who was very experienced in working within the sector and they would be working at Admiral Court until a new manager was appointed and settled into the service.

The project manager informed they had been in the home for a few months and since coming in they had reviewed processes that had been in place and looked at improvements that could be made without making too many changes that could be disruptive to the day to day running of the service. For example, previous manager had made changes to how the home was staffed and staff’s days off and annual leave request was being managed. This meant several of the staff were working three of four long days before having a day off. The project manager reviewed this process as to ensure all staff were getting time off work and the home was staffed at all times of the day and week.

There were a number of effective monitoring systems in place. Regular audits had taken place such as for health and safety, medication, falls, infection control and call bells. The project manager carried out a monthly manager’s audit where they checked care plans, activities, management and administration of the service. Actions arising from the audit were detailed in the report and included expected dates of completion and these were then checked at the next monthly audit. Records we held about the service confirmed that notifications had been sent to CQC as required by regulation

People benefited from a staff team that felt supported by the management team. Staff had handover meetings each shift and there was a communication book in use which staff used to communicate important information to others. It enabled staff who had been off duty to quickly access the information they needed to provide people with safe care and support. This showed that there was good teamwork within the service and that staff were kept up-to-date with information about changes to people’s needs to keep them safe and deliver good care.

The project manager told us that their aim was to support both the people and their family to ensure they felt at home and happy living at the service. The project manager added that they held meetings with relatives and people using the service as this gave the service an opportunity to identify areas of improvement and also give relatives an opportunity to feedback to staff; be it good or bad. People and their relatives also told us that they were involved in the continual improvement of the service.

Admiral Court provides care and accommodation for up to 60 people split over two units Amazon and Swallow. The inspection took place on the 28 April 2016, 29 April 2016 and 06 May 2016. The home is registered to provide a service to older people, younger adults and people with sensory impairments, mental health conditions and dementia, at the time of our inspection there was 60 people living in the service

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

People’s needs were being met. Although our observations showed that staff deployment throughout this inspection was good, staffing levels at weekends were not always maintained to the level of week days which was also reported to us by staff and confirmed in rotas we reviewed.

Although staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly, not all people felt safe and we found that the arrangements to keep people safe were not robust. Individual risks had not always been assessed and identified. Arrangements were in place to ensure that staff had been recruited safely and received opportunities for training, however not all staff had received regular supervision.

Opportunities for people to engage in social activities were variable, particularly for people who were immobile and/or remained in bed so improvements were required and this was the case at our previous inspection. Some people and their relatives did not feel involved in the care they received however improvement had been made since our last inspection.

There was a system in place to deal with people’s comments and complaints however we found that the registered manager had not investigated, recorded and dealt with complaints in line with the provider’s policies and procedures. We also found the Registered Manager had limited insight on complaints that had been dealt with or resolved.

Whilst we were concerned that some staff did not always recognise poor practice, suitable arrangements were in place to respond appropriately where an allegation of abuse had been made.

Arrangements in place to keep the provider up to date with what was happening in the service were not always effective. As a result there was a lack of positive leadership and managerial oversight. The Registered Manager had failed to use the systems put in place to identify and monitor the safety and quality of the service as they had failed to recognise the shortfalls or when they did there was a lack of action to rectify them.

People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink to ensure that their dietary and nutritional needs were met. People and relatives told us that staff treated people with kindness and were caring. Staff knew the needs of the people they supported. We found that people were always treated with respect and dignity and people received good care.

The Registered Manager had knowledge of the recent changes to the law regarding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) and was also aware of how and when to make a referral if required. People were safeguarded from harm. Staff had received training in Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and had knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

As part of our inspection we met with the provider’s representatives who told us how they planned to bring improvements to the service and in terms of people’s care delivery.

We spoke with 12 of the 22 people who currently use the service. They told us that they were happy and that the staff and food were good. One person said, “I was given a choice of rooms, the staff are all very good, my family live close by and I can attend the local church.” We saw staff interacting with people that use the service and they treated them in a respectful dignified manner. Although people using the service told us they were happy and we saw that they were well supported; we found that there was a lack of information on the level of support people required. We also found that people had not been involved in writing their care plans and that no residents meetings had taken place since the home opened.

There were procedures in place for safeguarding adults and staff showed a good awareness of them and more than 70% of staff had received training. Although staff told us that they felt supported; the records showed that no supervision had taken place. The feedback we received from relatives was positive about the quality of care at Admiral Court. One relative said, “The home is lovely and the care staff treat my family member with dignity and respect.” There was a clear quality monitoring system in place which had identified the need for improvements. A new manager is due to start work at the end of October 2012.

Admiral Court provides care and accommodation for up to 60 people split over two units Amazon and Swallow. The inspection took place on the 12 August 2015 and 13 August 2015. The home is registered to provide a service to older people, younger adults and people with sensory impairments, mental health conditions and dementia, at the time of our inspection there was 60 people living in the service

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

Concerns we found during our inspection was confined to people who received care living on the Amazon unit of the service.

People’s needs were being met, however people’s comments varied on whether the service had sufficient numbers of staff to cover both units at all times of the day and night. There were concerns about the deployment of staff specifically on the Amazon unit in terms of supporting people with higher care needs.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that staff had been recruited safely and received opportunities for training, however not all staff had received regular supervision.

Opportunities for people to engage in social activities were variable, particularly for people who were immobile and/or remained in bed so improvements were required. People and their relatives did not feel involved in the care they received.

Some people had sufficient amounts to eat and drink to ensure that their dietary and nutrition needs were being met; however the dining experience for people was not always good on the Amazon Unit.

Not all the people in the service were always engaged in meaningful activities particular those cared for in their bedrooms.

Relatives and people who used the service knew how to make a complaint and were assured that all complaints would be dealt with and resolved in a timely manner. The service had a number of ways of gathering people’s views about the quality of the service which included holding meetings with people, staff and relatives. However, some people felt this was not effective in changing areas of the service and improving their care.

The service had a number of quality monitoring processes in place to ensure the service maintained its standards; however they did not always work to improve the service and recognise concerns that had been raised by the Local Authority.

Staff knew the needs of the people they supported. We found that people were always treated with respect and dignity and people received good care.

The manager had a very good knowledge of the recent changes to the law regarding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) and was also aware of how and when to make a referral if required. People were safeguarded from harm. Staff had received training in Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and had knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).