What life is like for people using this service:

¿ Staff knew how to recognise potential abuse and who they should report any concerns to. People had access to equipment that reduced the risk of harm. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

¿ People had a choice of food and were supported to maintain a healthy diet in line with their needs and preferences. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and acted promptly to refer people to healthcare professionals when required.

¿ People enjoyed positive and caring relationships with the staff team and were treated with kindness and respect. People’s independence was promoted as staff.

¿ People were supported by staff who knew about their needs and routines and ensured these were met and respected. People and relatives knew how to complain and were confident that their concerns would be listened to.

¿ People and staff were happy with the way the service was led and managed and the provider worked well with partners to ensured people’s needs were met.

¿ Service management and leadership was consistent. The registered manager listened to people’s views and experiences and made any improvements needed.

¿ We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 3 June 2016)

About the service: Hopwood Court House is a residential care home that was providing personal care up to 23 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.

Follow up: There will be ongoing monitoring.

This inspection took place on 8 January 2016 and was unannounced.

The provider of Hopwood Court is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 23 people. At the time of this inspection 22 people lived at the home.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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 told us they felt safe at the home. Risks to people were managed well without placing undue restrictions upon them. Staff were trained in recognising and understanding how to report potential abuse. Staffing levels were appropriate which meant people were supported with their care and to pursue interests of their choice. People received the right medicines at the right time and medicines were handled safely.

People told us staff understood their individual care needs. We found people were supported by staff who were well trained and received training to meet people’s specific needs. Staff had maintained links with health and social care professionals so they could seek their advice and act upon this to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met. They were supported to make their individual choices about their meals and preferences around food and drink were acted upon.

People were asked for their permission before staff provided care and support so that people were able to consent to their care. Where people were unable to consent to aspects of their care because they did not have the mental capacity to do this decisions were made in their best interests. Staff practices meant that people received care and support in the least restrictive way to meet their needs.

Staff had developed positive, respectful relationships with people and were kind and caring in their approach. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and they were supported to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives.

People were satisfied staff cared for and supported them in the way they wanted. People’s care plans described their needs and abilities and were relevant to the risks identified in their individual risk assessments. This included supporting people to have fun and interesting things to do so the risks of social isolation were reduced.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident this would be listened to and acted upon.

Staff enjoyed their work and were guided by a clear set of values. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities which helped the home to run smoothly. They felt able to share issues and ideas to make improvements for the benefit of people who lived at the home. Staff spoke about people who they supported with warmth and fondness.

There was good leadership which promoted an open culture and which put people at the heart of the service. The registered manager understood the home’s strengths, where improvements were needed and had plans in place to achieve these. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement.

We carried out an inspection to help us answer five questions;

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?”

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with five people using the service, three care staff supporting them and looking at four care records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us that they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.

Staff had received training in how to protect people's rights and understood legal requirements.The provider had appropriate policies and procedures to protect people’s rights and choices and gain their consent to the care and support they received. The provider's policies reflected the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff knew about risk management plans and we saw that they supported people in line with those plans.

The manager ensured that staff rotas were planned in advance to maintain the staffing numbers required to provide care in a safe way. The staff had the training and support required to ensure that people’s needs were met.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them and where people wanted family members were involved. We saw that care plans were regularly updated.

Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by the care staff. This meant the provider worked well with other services to ensure people's care needs were met.

Care staff received the appropriate training to meet the diverse needs of people who used the service.

People we spoke with confirmed that they could have visitors when they wanted to and spend time alone in private if they wished.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by staff that were kind and caring. We saw that care staff gave people encouragement and were patient with them. One person told us, "The manager is like a member of the family and all of the staff are kind and caring". People’s preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to plan and engage in a range of different activities each day.

People were aware of the provider's complaints procedure and knew how to raise concerns. One person told us, “They are responsive to any requests you make”.

Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this.

Is the service well led?

The service had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. The provider sought the views of people who used the service. Records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were addressed promptly.

The staff were well supported to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out the care people needed. Care staff were given feedback about their performance so improvements could be made where needed.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality of care. Staff told us the home was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

When we carried out this inspection 21 people were using the service. We spoke with four people in detail as well as other people in less detail during the course of the inspection. We also spoke with two relatives who were visiting. In addition we spoke to someone who had carried out some staff training on the day of our inspection. We spoke with the registered manager and three other members of staff.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service they received and the staff working there. One person told us: “We are very happy with the way xx (name of person) is looked after”. Another relative described the staff as: “Very caring and friendly”.

Staff knew about the needs of the people they were caring for. We saw that people’s needs were reviewed. However care plans were not always accurate and recordings were not always an accurate reflection of events.

We found that the home was clean throughout. Audits were in place to make sure infection control procedures were maintained so that people were not placed at risk of infection.

We found that people were satisfied with the number of staff on duty at the home to make sure that people’s needs were met.

There was a system in place for people to make complaints if they were not happy with any aspect of the service.

When we visited Hopwood Court we spoke with several people who used the service. We found that people were able to express their views regarding their care and treatment. We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

We found that care and treatment had been planned and delivered in a way that met with the essential standards. We talked with several people about their experience of the care and service they had received from the service. They were complimentary about the care and support that they received from the service. People told us they “could not have anywhere better” and “we don’t want for anything”.

We found that people who used the service were generally protected from the risk of abuse. People who used the service told us they felt safe and they were aware of how to complain.

People told us that they received a good standard of care from the staff who worked for the service. They told us that the staff were “very caring” and “marvellous”.

We found that staff received appropriate training. Staff told us that they liked working at Hopwood Court. Staff received regular supervision to support them in the work they do.

People who used the service were asked for their views about the care and treatment provided. We found that the provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.