You are here

Housing & Care 21 - Shearman Court Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 March 2017

We carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 23 September 2016.

The service provides personal care to people living in their own flats in a purpose built building. At the time of the inspection 66 people were living at the service, 31 of whom were supported with personal care. Everyone else who lived at the service managed their own needs independently, although some people made use of a daily welfare check. The service was set up to enable people to request and receive the amount of support they required as and when they needed it.

The service had a registered 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.

There were systems in place to safeguard people from harm. Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities to report any matters of concern and were confident to do so. There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff about how risks to people could be minimised.

The provider had robust recruitment processes in place to ensure as far as possible, that suitable staff were employed. There were sufficient skilled staff to provide safe care to people.

Staff received supervision and support, and had training to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided.

The service did not provide meals although staff supported people to prepare meals where this was part of their care package. People were supported to access other health and social care services if required.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences and choices. There was a range of events and activities offered within the communal areas of the building which were based on people’s interests. People had good links with the local community and there was good information provided to people to enable them to know what events were available.

The provider encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service. The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and there were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 March 2017

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to safeguard people from harm.

There were effective recruitment systems in place and there was sufficient skilled staff to support people safely.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 March 2017

The service was effective.

People were asked for their consent before any care was provided.

People were supported by well trained staff who knew their needs well.

People were supported to access health and social care services when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 March 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that were kind and respectful.

Staff understood people’s individual needs and they respected their choices.

Staff respected and protected people’s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs had been assessed and appropriate care plans were in place to meet their individual needs.

There was a wide range of activities on offer and people were provided with good information about activities and events taking place in the local community.

The provider had an effective system to handle complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 March 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager promoted a person- centred culture within the service and staff understood their roles and responsibilities when supporting people in meeting their needs.

Staff felt supported and well managed by their immediate management team, but felt that the wider provider organisation did not always support them as much as they would like.

People who used the service were encouraged to share their experiences of the service.

Quality monitoring audits were carried out regularly and the findings were used to drive improvements.