Archived: Comfort call (Westmoreland House)

Updated 18 February 2020

The inspection

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

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an assistant inspector.

Service and service type

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be available to support the inspection. The inspection was completed in one day.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we received about the service since the previous provider’s last inspection. This included checking incidents the provider must notify us about, such as serious injuries and abuse. We sought feedback from the local authority, Healthwatch and professionals who work with the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

On this occasion, we had not asked the provider to send us a provider Information return (PIR). A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service. This includes what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. However, we offered the provider the opportunity to share information they felt was relevant.

During the inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service and asked them about the quality of the care they or their family member received. We also spoke with three care staff, the registered manager and the regional manager. The regional manager was there to represent the provider of this service.

We reviewed a range of records. This included all or parts of records relating to the care of three people. We also reviewed three staff files, training and supervision records and records relating to the safety and management of the service.

After the inspection

We asked the registered manager to provide us with a variety of policies and procedures and additional information. All information was sent within the required timeframe. We used all this information to help form our judgements detailed within this report.

Updated 18 February 2020

About the service

Comfort Call (Westmoreland House) is an Extra Care Housing scheme that provides personal care for people living in their own flats on one site. There were 14 people using the service at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were provided with safe care that reduced the risk to their safety. There were enough suitable staff in place to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe. People’s medicines were safely managed. Staff had received training on how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. The provider ensured staff and the registered manager learned from mistakes and agencies were notified of incidents that could affect people’s health and safety.

People’s assessed care needs were provided in accordance with current best practice guidance and legislation. People were supported by well-trained and experienced staff. People’s nutritional needs were managed, and they were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. Some people received care from other agencies as well as this service. The two worked together to provide timely and consistent care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were kind, caring and treated people well. Staff were respectful and provided personal care in a dignified way. People’s privacy was respected. People were involved with decisions about their care.

People’s care records were person-centred and contained guidance for staff to support them in their preferred way. People were provided with opportunities to avoid social insolation by meeting others. Information was provided for people in an accessible format. People felt able to make a complaint and were confident their complaint would be acted on. End of life care was not currently provided, but staff would support people with this if required.

Quality assurance processes were consistently implemented to help the provider and the registered manager to identify and act on areas which could pose a risk to people’s safety. The registered manager had a good knowledge of their regulatory requirement to report concerns to the CQC. People’s views were requested and acted on to aid the development and continued improvement of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was Good. (Published 5 July 2017).

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.