• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Housing 21 - Lea Springs

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Common Lane, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 5AT (01438) 845220

Provided and run by:
Housing 21

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 10 January 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned this inspection to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took on 5 December 2018 and was carried out by one inspector and an assistant inspector.

Prior to the inspection we looked at information we held about the service such as notifications. These are events that happen in the service that the provider is required to tell us about. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with three people who lived at Lea Springs and one relative. We also spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, and two care staff. We reviewed a range of documents which included care records for three people, recruitments records for three staff and training records. We reviewed quality assurance documents, activities and medicine administration records.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

This inspection was completed on 5 December 2018 and was unannounced.

Lea Springs is an extra care development offering independent living to people in individual apartments. There are 38 apartments some of which are privately owned. People have access to a range of communal facilities and care and support is available to people 24/7 from a care team on site. A housing and care manager is on site also to provide support and assistance with organising care, repairs and maintenance requirements.

Not everyone using received the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

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.

People felt safe receiving care and support from staff. Staff had received training and demonstrated a good understanding about how to keep people safe and knew how to report any concerns.

Safe recruitment practices were followed. However, records were difficult to navigate and inconsistent. People were supported by adequate numbers of staff with the right skills and abilities.

Medicines were managed safely, and appropriate infection control practices were in place.

People felt staff were well trained. Staff felt well supported and received ongoing training in a range of topics relevant to their roles. They had regular supervisions, work based observations and spot checks.

People were supported to maintain a varied and healthy diet and where necessary and were supported to access health care professionals.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and obtained people’s consent prior to any care being provided. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People felt staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect. People’s dignity was maintained throughout their support and they were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Care plans were personalised and detailed. Information included people’s individual needs, likes, dislikes and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated when required and people and or their family where appropriate were involved.

Feedback on the service was sought from people through completion of surveys and spot checks. Any concerns or complaints received were recorded and investigated by the registered manager and any learning from these was shared with the staff to help drive improvements.

There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service. However, these were not always effective in identifying inconsistencies in records. People were very positive about the service and staff. The registered manager operated an open, transparent and inclusive culture at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.