• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Housing 21 - Summer Court

Whitegates Close, Hythe, Kent, CT21 6AZ 0370 192 4428

Provided and run by:
Housing 21

All Inspections

26 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

On 1 July 2013 we inspected Housing 21 - Summer Court and found non-compliance in the areas relating to management of medicines, assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision and records. We also inspected prior to this and found non-compliance in the area of notification of other incidents. This was a follow up inspection to check compliance against those areas.

During this inspection we spoke with five people who were using the service, a relative, the registered manager and three staff members.

People told us they continued to be satisfied with the service provided and they got their medication when they should. People said they had opportunities to give feedback about the service they received. Records were found to be accurate, fit for purpose and held securely.

Events affecting people's welfare, health and safety had been reported appropriately.

1 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us they were happy with the service they received, staff knew their needs and sought their permission before providing care. Comments included 'The staff are very kind to me' and 'They are always really nice and respectful'.

There were systems in place to obtain people's agreement to their care and support plans and to record when people were unable to provide written consent. Most of the staff had undertaken training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw that people had a support plan that provided staff with information about people's personal care routine and people told us they had their care needs met.

The systems in place to manage medicines were not always effective. People did not always receive the medicine they needed because sometimes their stock had run out.

Staff were supported in their role by attending training, regular supervision and staff meetings.

The systems in place to regularly monitor service delivery were not always effective. Concerns we identified during the inspection about the management of medicines and in relation to maintaining accurate records had not been identified.

People's care records were not always maintained effectively or accurate.

27 June 2012

During a routine inspection

People who use the service were tenants of their accommodation. There were 40 residents, 16 of whom were fully independent.

People were pleased with the care they received. They said staff understood their care needs. They were treated with respect and their dignity and privacy maintained.

There were mixed views about the food with views ranging from 'poor' to 'wonderful'. However all agreed that there was a wide choice.

General comments included 'they don't take away your independence but encourage you (to do things)', and 'I can tell (name of care worker) anything' and 'they are a wonderful bunch of people'.

4 October 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that staff had consulted them about their care and support needs, and that staff understood how they liked to be supported. People had copies of their care plans in their individual flats and had signed that they agreed with them or a representative had signed for them.

People liked the staff and said they were kind, respectful, and caring but they felt that there were not always enough staff on duty to meet everyone's planned needs and to be able to respond to additional requests for support a well.

People told us that they felt safe and they appreciated living in a place where they could receive care whilst maintaining their independence. They said that staff came quickly if they rang for them and any health concerns were promptly referred onto health professionals.

People who received assistance with meal preparation, eating their meals or the provision of meals from Housing 21 were not satisfied with the quality of the food or the assistance they were given at mealtimes. This was because they said the food was poor quality and staff interrupted mealtimes to see to other people.

People told us the organisation sought their views on the service through surveys, individual discussion and 'residents' meetings.