Archived: Housing 21 - Roman Ridge

Updated 8 June 2019

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:

This inspection was completed by one inspector and one assistant inspector.

Service and service type:

This service provides care 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 person’s own home. People’s care and housing are therefore provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only regulates the personal care provided to people and not the accommodation. For this reason, we only looked at the care people received.

This service is known as Roman Ridge. Not everyone using Roman Ridge receives 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 receive personal care, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There are 80 flats within the extra care housing scheme at Roman Ridge. At the time of this inspection, the service was providing personal care to around 40 people. People had access to shared communal spaces such as a large lounge, dining area and hair salon.

The service had a manager registered with CQC. 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 as we needed to be sure staff would be available during the office visit and we wanted to arrange visits to people in their own homes.

We visited the office location on 13 May 2019 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

What we did:

Before this inspection we reviewed the information we had received about the service since the last inspection. The registered manager had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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.

We contacted social care commissioners who help arrange and monitor social care services. We also contacted Healthwatch (Sheffield). Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used the feedback we received to plan our inspection.

On 13 May 2019 we spoke with four people using the service and two of their relatives, to ask about their experience of the care provided. We visited the service's office and spoke with the registered manager, an assistant care manager and three care workers. We checked five people's care records, three staff files and viewed a range of other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 8 June 2019

About the service:

Housing & Care 21 – Roman Ridge is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care to people living in their own homes within the Roman Ridge extra care housing scheme. The service is based in an office on the ground floor of the housing scheme. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting approximately 40 people with personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they felt safe. They said staff turned up when they were meant to and provided them with the support they expected to receive during each visit. People said staff were well trained and knew what they were doing. Staff told us they were happy with the training they received. They thought it supported them to deliver effective care to people.

People’s medicines were mostly managed safely, however we have made a recommendation about the provider’s medicines management policy.

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care. They told us they felt in control of the care and support they received. 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.

People’s care records were person-centred and provided staff with clear guidance about the support people needed. Risks to people were assessed and kept under review, to help keep people safe.

Staff were kind and caring. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and supported them effectively. Staff supported people to maintain their independence. Staff knew people well and knew how they preferred to be cared for.

Staff supported people to maintain their health by liaising with community health professionals when necessary. People received appropriate support from staff to maintain a balanced diet.

The provider’s staff recruitment procedures had been amended shortly prior to this inspection. We were satisfied the amended procedures would be safe, but the registered manager needed to complete additional checks on staff already employed by the service. They agreed to do this.

The service was not providing end of life care at the time of this inspection, however we have made a recommendation about staff training in the provision of end of life care.

People using the service and their relatives told us they thought the service was well-run. The registered manager and senior staff completed a range of checks on the quality of the service to make sure it was operating effectively. Where they identified improvements could be made, they were discussed with staff during supervision meetings and staff meetings.

People knew how to make a complaint if they had any concerns about the care and support they received. People were provided with information about how to complain if they needed to.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good (published 14 November 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.

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