Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Livability John Grooms Court, Norwich.

Livability John Grooms Court in Norwich is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults under 65 yrs, learning disabilities, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The last inspection date here was 14th December 2019

Livability John Grooms Court is managed by Livability who are also responsible for 36 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Livability John Grooms Court
      215 Sprowston Road
      Norwich
      NR3 4HX
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01603429400
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-12-14
    Last Published 2018-12-14

Local Authority:

    Norfolk

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

29th October 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection visit completed on 29 and 30 October 2018.

Livability John Grooms Court is a ‘care home’ providing residential care to people physical, neurological and or learning disabilities. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service is registered to provide care to a maximum of 29 people. There were 22 people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

At our last inspection completed on 19 and 20 April 2016 we rated the service as good for all five key questions.

During this inspection, we found that risks to people were not always identified or measures put in place to mitigate them. The service was not visibly clean throughout, increasing the risk of spread of infection and cross contamination. Incidents and accidents were not always well managed or action taken in a timely way as an outcome. Some shifts did not consist of the provider’s minimum staffing levels in line with their dependency tool.

Quality audits had not identified area of risk and concern found during the inspection. Care records were not consistently being recorded to reflect completion of care intervention. Not all notifiable incidents and events had been submitted CQC or the local authority safeguarding team.

Staff received the necessary training for their roles and plans were in place for staff to attend refresher and role specific courses where applicable. People's mental capacity was assessed, with best interest’s decision making in consultation with relatives and other professionals, however this needed to be incorporated more into people’s care plans.

Staff supported people to maintain choice, control and involvement in their care and daily routine.

Care plans indicated people’s individual preferences for showers or baths. People's care records identified individual key needs and risks, and contained guidance for staff to follow to ensure provision of consistent standards of care. People engaged with activities, education and employment onsite and in the community.

19th April 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 19 and 20 April 2016 and was unannounced.

John Grooms Court provides care for up to 27 people. The home offers self-contained flats for adults who have a physical disability. The building is purpose built, offering accommodation over three floors.

The registered manager had recently left. The deputy manager was acting as the manager until the provider recruited a new registered manager. There was also a further deputy manager. 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 benefitted from being supported by staff who were safely recruited, well trained and felt supported in their work. There was consistently enough staff to safely meet people’s individual needs.

Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and knew the procedure for reporting any concerns. Medicines were managed and stored safely and adherence to best practice was consistently applied. People received their medicines on time, safely and in the manner the prescriber intended.

Staff knew and understood the needs of people living at John Grooms Court.

Staff did not receive regular supervision; however staff said they were in regular communication with the management team. The manager was aware of this short fall and was aiming to resolve this shortly.

Staff told us they were happy working at John Grooms Court. They assisted people with kindness, compassion and respect. People’s dignity and privacy was maintained and respected.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. The service was not depriving people of their liberty unlawfully and worked within the principles of the MCA.

People’s care plans were detailed and individualised. They contained important and relevant information to assist staff in meeting people’s needs in a way that was personalised. People and their relatives had been involved in making decisions around the care they received. People’s needs had been reviewed.

The service had good links with community healthcare teams. People were supported to maintain good health and wellbeing. Some people had complex health needs; these people’s needs were closely monitored. The service reacted positively to changes in people’s health and social care needs.

People enjoyed a range of activities which reflected what they were interested in. People had jobs and performed voluntary activities. People also attended places of further education. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with others and the service actively welcomed family members and visitors to the home.

There was a positive and open culture. There was a friendly and energised atmosphere to the communal areas. People felt listened to and were confident that any concerns they may have would be addressed. People were actively involved in the service. Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. The management team played an active part in the daily life at John Grooms Court.

19th December 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People's care and support needs were recorded in detail and their care plans showed that they were being met in line with people's assessed needs. This meant that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff were confident that they would know what action to take if they observed any potential abuse. This showed us that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Maintenance records and schedules were in place and checklists were used to record equipment checks and any remedial action. This meant that people who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

The registered manager produced a monthly report for the provider and this included information on quality monitoring measures within the service. This and the other evidence inspected meant that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

We saw that records were well kept and stored securely and that these could be located promptly when needed. This meant that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

6th December 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

One person told us that, “l consider that l am well supported by the staff”. This demonstrated to us that people’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. They told us that staff understood their individual needs and that if they had any concerns staff would address these wherever possible. One person told us that, “The staff are approachable and always have time for me”. This showed us that people experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We saw that an infection control audit had been carried out in January 2012. We noted that any concerns identified were being addressed by the service. This showed us that people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Medicine management systems were in place in the service. This demonstrated to us that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Staff told us that they would assist people in making their concerns or complaints known. They were aware of how to address any complaints that they received or became aware of. This showed us that the comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

20th April 2011 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People with whom we spoke said that they were very happy with the way they were supported. Staff were described as very good and one person said, “Nothing is too much trouble.” They told us that they did not feel rushed by staff when they needed help with their care.

People said they had no complaints about the way they were supported.

One felt “safe” and “comfortable” about the way in which staff worked with them.

 

 

Latest Additions: