The Inspection was carried out on 02 June 2017 and was unannounced. Saxon Court provides care and support to adults with learning disabilities, limited verbal communication abilities and challenging behaviour. The service provides residential care for mostly older adults with learning disabilities and complex needs. Saxon Court is divided internally into three separate wings. At the time we visited there were 18 people living at the service.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 25 October 2016. A breach of legal requirements was found in relation to consent and the Mental Capacity Act (2005). After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their action plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Saxon Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

There was a newly registered manager employed at the home. 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. The provider had also recruited a general manager for the service who had started some weeks before our inspection.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were procedures in place and guidance was clear in relation to Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) that included steps that staff should take to comply with legal requirements. The processes of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed when applying for DoLS. Appropriate applications for DoLS had been made for people who lived in the home.

Peoples' health was monitored and they were referred to health services in an appropriate and timely manner. Any recommendations made by health care professionals were incorporated into peoples' care plans and acted upon.

People had sufficient food and drink to maintain good health. Staff were aware of people’s specific dietary needs and where required adaptations were made to ensure people received adequate nutrition.

Staff were trained with the right skills and knowledge to provide people with the care and assistance they needed.

We inspected this home on 25 October 2016. This was an unannounced inspection.

Saxon Court provides care and support to adults with learning disabilities, limited verbal communication abilities and challenging behaviour. The service provides residential care for mostly older adults with learning disabilities and complex needs. Saxon Court is divided internally into three separate wings namely; Meadowview which had seven people, Ashcroft had four people and Lynwood four people. At the time we visited there were 20 people in total living at the home.

There was a new manager at the home. The new manager is also the provider and they had submitted their application as the registered manager with CQC after the previous manager left. 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.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were procedures in place and guidance was clear in relation to Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) that included steps that staff should take to comply with legal requirements. However, the processes of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not been followed when applying for DoLS. Not everyone had appropriate DoLS in place, hence, appropriate DoLS applications had not been made when we visited.

People were protected against the risk of abuse. We observed that people felt safe in the home. Staff recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for. The new manager, care manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident in doing so.

The home had risk assessments in place. This was to identify and reduce risks that may be involved when meeting people’s needs such as inability to verbally communicate, which could lead to behaviour that challenges and details of how the risks could be reduced. This enabled the staff to take immediate action to minimise or prevent harm to people.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Staff attended regular training courses. Staff were supported by their manager and felt able to raise any concerns they had or suggestions to improve the service to people.

Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the manager. Staff had the opportunity to discuss their performance during one to one meetings and annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. People had good access to health and social care professionals when required.

Staff encouraged people to undertake activities and supported them to become more independent. Staff spent time engaging people in conversations, and spoke to them politely and respectfully.

People’s care plans contained information about their personal preferences and focussed on individual needs. People and those closest to them were involved in regular reviews to ensure the support provided continued to meet their needs.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required.

People were involved in assessment and care planning processes. Their support needs, likes and lifestyle preferences had been carefully considered and were reflected within the care and support plans available.

Staff meetings took place on a regular basis. Minutes were taken and any actions required were recorded and acted on. People’s feedback was sought and used to improve the care.

People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accorda

People at the home had complex needs and were not all able to tell us about their experiences at the home. In order to get a better understanding we observed care practices, looked at records and spoke with staff.

We spoke with three people at the home, four care staff, the manager and the provider. We also spoke with the Area Manager who attended for part of the inspection. One person told us "I like it here". Another person said "I am happy". A member of staff commented "There have been a lot of changes and things have improved".

We found that people were supported to give consent to care and treatment. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Care and welfare was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw that a new care plan system was in place which was kept up to date. Monitoring had been improved to make sure that people received care as outlined in their care plan.

There were systems in place to make sure that people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. The provider was aware of improvements that were needed to the environment and had a plan in place to do this.

We found that people were not protected by robust recruitment procedures as the provider had not always obtained sufficient information about staff before they were employed

At the time of our inspection we found that some of the rooms at the service were not being used as the provider wanted to carry out refurbishment work to the property. Therefore the provider ensured that certain areas of the building were not used.

We spoke with three people that used the service. They all told us that they thought that the care that they received was good and that they felt safe living at Saxon Court. One person told us “It’s good, I feel safe”. Another person told us “It’s not too bad, I get up myself when I want to”.

We spoke with three staff that worked at the service. They all felt that people that used the service received a good standard of care.

We spoke with a professional that was visiting the service. They told us that people always appeared to be well cared for whenever they had visited.

We found that people’s likes, dislikes and preferences were recorded. We found that there were also details about their usual daily routines. We found that people’s care needs were assessed but we were not always able to evidence that these were being met.

We found that staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal and that there was adequate training in place. We saw that the provider carried out an annual survey that gave people that used the service, their relatives and other people involved in their care with the opportunity to provide feedback about the service.