We carried out a review of the data available to us about Harry Caplan House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Harry Caplan House, you can give feedback on this service.
Harry Caplan House is a service which provides personal care and support to 18 people living in an extra care scheme. These are primarily older people.
This is a large modern building comprising of 32 flats, eight of which are for short term use. These are people on placement for up to six weeks following discharge from hospital, before returning to live back in their own homes.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
A registered manager was in post who was exceptionally passionate about the care provided. Along with the assistant manager they had made a number of changes to improve the service, and this impact was evident in the overwhelmingly positive feedback we received from people living at Harry Caplan House. Staff ensured people were at heart of all decisions made and the care they received.
People and staff had a variety of opportunities to feedback about the running of the service and this was clearly used to make changes to benefit everyone at the service and to drive improvements. People were encouraged and empowered to get involved with fundraising activities to shape the service further and create opportunities to reduce social isolation for people.
Care was based upon good practice guidance to ensure people received an effective service. Substantial investment had been made in staff with training and staff were encouraged to specialise in areas of expertise as champions, so they could support and develop their colleagues further.
The management team showed a strong commitment and took effective action to make sure there was equality and inclusion across the service.
Staff were caring in their approach and had excellent relationships with people. Promoting independence was a core aspect of service and people were supported by staff to improve their daily living skills and confidence.
There were enough staff to ensure people were safe and staff had some time to get to know people well. Where risks associated with people's health and wellbeing had been identified, plans were in place to manage those risks. Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from harm and knew how to report concerns.
People received care which was responsive to their individual needs. Care records provided staff with information in relation to people’s backgrounds, interests and individual health needs. Staff knew people well and what made them happy.
Staff encouraged people to maintain a balanced diet. The provider and staff team worked closely with external healthcare professionals to ensure people's health and wellbeing was maintained.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; systems supported this practice.
Robust quality checks were carried out to monitor the service, and these identified where improvements could be made.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The service was rated as Good (published 12 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, in June 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People continued to receive care and support which protected them from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified and measures were in place to help reduce these risks. When people required support to take their medicines as prescribed, they were only supported by staff when they had received the training to do so.
The care people received continued to be effective. Staff received training linked to the needs of people who lived at the home. People were encouraged to make their own decisions and choices and staff checked people wanted care before helping them. People where required were assisted to access health and social care professionals.
People had built caring relationships with staff who spoke warmly about people they cared for. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to maintain their independence. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
People and their relatives’ views and suggestions were listened to when people’s care was planned. Systems were in place to manage complaints. People and their relatives knew how to raise any complaints or concerns.
People and their relatives were complimentary about the way the service was managed. The registered manager had conducted regular checks and audits to assess and monitor the quality of the support and care provided.
We undertook an announced inspection of Harry Caplan House on 3 March February 2015. We told the provider before our visit that we would be coming. This was so people could give consent for us to visit them in their flats to talk with them.
Harry Caplan House provides housing with care. The unit consists of 32 flats; people live in their own home and have a tenancy agreement with Whitefriars Housing. Staff provide personal care and support to people at pre-arranged times and in emergencies. At the time of our visit there were 30 people using the service.
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 who used the service said they felt safe at Harry Caplan House. Staff knew what they should do to keep people safe and there were processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. These included a procedure to manage risks associated with people’s care and an effective procedure for managing people’s medicines.
Staff gained people’s consent before they provided personal care and supported people to maintain their independence. Staff had good knowledge about the people they supported and provided care and support in the way people preferred.
There were enough suitably trained staff to meet people’s individual support needs and to provide a responsive service. People were happy with the care they received and said staff were caring and friendly. Staff respected people’s privacy and maintained people’s dignity when providing care.
Care plans detailed how people wished to receive their care and people were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People said they were listened to and there were processes in place for people to express their views and opinions about the service. People were confident they could raise any concerns about their care or support.
Staff said they were supported by the managers and felt confident they could raise any concerns or issues. There were processes in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. This was through feedback from people who used the service, staff meetings and a programme of checks and audits. The managers and staff were motivated and committed to provide a quality service to people, and this was reflected in the positive comments we received from all the people we spoke with about the service.
The providers report told us they had made several improvements to how records were being managed.
The report told us people's files had been audited since the inspection. Risk assessments had been reviewed to ensure assessments had been completed for all identified risks. People's medical conditions had been recorded in their care file. This would make sure staff had up to date information about people's care and were aware of any risks associated with this.
The procedure for auditing medication records had been reviewed.
The senior team were now aware of their responsibility for completion of information in people's files.
The service had implemented six monthly audits of all files as well as random audits.
The report from the provider showed that appropriate action had been taken to ensure records were accurate and up to date.
We looked at the care records of three people who used the service. We were satisfied people were receiving the care they had consented to. We found care plans provided staff with sufficient information about people's support needs and explained how care staff were to provide support safely.
People we spoke with said they were happy with the care they received. People told us 'I know all the staff really well' and 'They are more like family than staff.'
Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise symptoms of abuse and what to do to keep people safe. We found people received their medication at the times prescribed. There were processes in place to safely recruit staff and provide staff with the training and support to meet the care needs of people.
We found the record keeping in the agency was not always accurate or up to date. This could result in people receiving inappropriate or unsafe care.
We spoke to staff, observed policies and processes, examined three staff records, reviewed three sets of notes and spoke to four people using the service to gain further insight of the care provided.
People using the service were very happy at the home and satisfied with the care they received. Many had lived there for a number of years and found the carers to be friendly and very caring. One person told us they really loved living there. Another said 'the carers are wonderful'. It was generally felt that the service met their needs and staff treated them with dignity and respect.
We saw evidence of quality management processes to audit the quality of care and seek people's views on the care they receive. Meetings were used to discuss new information and matters important to tenants and staff.
Risk assessments were in place but were not appropriately updated and risks were highlighted with insufficient evidence to show how they were managed. Incidents were reported which identified themes that were not appropriately addressed.
There were processes in place to recruit staff and support training. Staff told us they enjoyed working there and could not imagine working anywhere else. "It's like a family" they said.
People we spoke with said that care workers treated them with respect and always maintained their privacy. 'I get three calls, some involve personal care. I feel the staff are always respectful and I never feel rushed.' We saw that staff were knowledgeable of people's needs and were kind, caring and attentive towards them.
The people we spoke with told us staff encouraged them to maintain their independence and skills. One person said, 'The staff let me do the things I can and help me with things I can't do.'
Relatives we spoke with said that staff are always respectful and their relatives are well looked after. One relative said 'I can't begin to tell you the change moving here has made for dad. Staff are great with him he is not always easy to deal with' another relative told us, 'Staff are fantastic, my mum is really happy here, she is looked after extremely well.'
The files we looked at contained care plans and risk assessments. Not all risks associated with moving and handling had been assessed and this could place people at risk of harm or injury. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of monitoring pressure areas. However there was no information in care plans about how pressure areas are assessed or managed and this is a potential risk.
All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Harry Caplan House and said staff were kind and supportive. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of their role and their responsibility to protect people. Staff knew about the whistle blowing procedure and said they would report poor practice to the office.
People who use the service told us they had information about making complaints and would talk to staff if they were unhappy with anything.