You are here

Housing 21 - Fountain Court Good

We have edited an inspection report for Housing 21 – Fountain Court in order to remove some text which should not have been included in this report. This has not affected the rating given to this service.


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Housing 21 - Fountain Court on 8 July 2021. 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 Housing 21 - Fountain Court, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 22 January 2019

During a routine inspection

This was an announced inspection which took place on 22 and 24 January 2019. We gave the provider 24 hours' notice to ensure someone would be available at the office.

Housing and Care 21-Fountain Court provides personal care and support to people living in 'extra care' housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant's own home. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission does not regulate premises used for extra care housing, this inspection looked at people's personal care and support service. The complex comprises 42 apartments. They are for single person or double occupancy.

Not everyone living at Fountain Court receives the regulated activity. At the time of the inspection there were 39 people in receipt of a service.

At our last inspection in August 2016 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.


At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People and relatives told us the service kept them safe. They trusted the workers who supported them. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse. People's medicines were managed safely. The provider and registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough staff were deployed to support people safely. The provider's recruitment process minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

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 had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people's care needs.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Care plans were in place that provided some detail of how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff had developed good relationships with people, were caring in their approach and treated people with respect. Care was provided with patience and kindness. Staff upheld people's human rights and treated everyone with respect and dignity.

Staff were aware of people's nutritional needs and made sure they were supported with eating and drinking where necessary. People's health needs were identified and staff worked with other health care professionals to ensure these were addressed.

People were provided with some opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies. They were supported to be part of the local community.

People, their relatives and staff said the management team were supportive and approachable. Communication was effective, ensuring people, their relatives and other relevant agencies were kept up-to-date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 8 June 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection of Housing & Care 21 - Fountain Court on 8 and 22 June 2016. The inspection was unannounced. We last inspected Housing & Care 21 - Fountain Court in October 2014 and found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at that time.

Housing & Care 21 - Fountain Court provides personal care for up to 41 people who have privately rented flats within an extra care housing facility. At the time of the inspection there were 40 people in receipt of a service.

The service did not have a registered manager in post. They had applied to become registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 told us they felt safe and were well cared for. Staff knew about safeguarding vulnerable adults. Alerts were raised and dealt with appropriately, which helped to keep people safe. Incidents and allegations were notified to the local safeguarding team and the provider worked positively with statutory agencies, such as the local authority and CQC.

We were told staff provided care safely and we found staff were subject to robust recruitment checks. There were sufficient staff employed to ensure continuity of care and the reliability of the service. Staff managed medicines safely. Where errors occurred these were dealt with promptly and appropriately.

Staff had completed relevant training for their role and they were well supported by their supervisors and the manager. Training included care and safety related topics and further topics were planned.

Staff obtained people’s consent before providing care. The manager was aware of people who had a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection. Support was provided with food and drink appropriate to the level of people's need. People were able to readily access an on-site restaurant. People’s health needs were identified and where appropriate, staff worked with other professionals to ensure these needs were addressed.

People spoke of staff’s kind and caring approach. Staff explained clearly how people’s privacy and dignity were maintained.

Assessments of people’s care needs were obtained before services were started. Care plans had been developed which were person-centred and had sufficient detail to guide care practice. Staff understood people’s needs and people and their relatives expressed satisfaction with the care provided.

Events requiring notification had been reported to CQC. Records were organised and easily retrieved.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included regular audits and feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. People’s views were sought through annual surveys, meetings, care review arrangements and the complaints process. Action had been taken, or was planned, where the need for improvement was identified.

Inspection carried out on 14 October 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found that action had been taken to improve how people who used the service were supported in managing their personal finances. Robust arrangements were now in place to handle money safely and protect people from the risk of financial abuse.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activity at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

Inspection carried out on 14, 15 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People�s planned care included actions to reduce risks and ensure personal care was delivered safely. People who used the service said they felt safe with their care workers. They told us, �I know I can rely on them�, and, �The staff know what they�re doing. They care for us all and wouldn�t harm anyone.�

Staff were trained to protect vulnerable people and allegations of abuse were responded to appropriately. But the service did not have a robust system in place to support people in managing their personal money. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that people were fully safeguarded from potential harm. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

We found that medicines arrangements had been improved and people were now protected against the risks associated with the use and management of medicines.

Is the service effective?

People�s care was well planned and kept under regular review to check it remained effective. People and their relatives told us they were pleased with their care and support. They said, �The staff are a good help to me�; and, �I�m very happy and know that the carers know what they are doing.�

The staff team received training that equipped them with the skills to meet the needs of the people they cared for. Staff told us they well supported in their roles and their performance was regularly supervised and appraised.

Is the service caring?

People told us they felt well cared for. One person said, �The girls are just great.� A second person commented �I�m very happy with the care.� A relative said, �They take him to the social activities and events�. Staff told us, and our observations confirmed, that they took a pride in providing people with person-centred care.

Is the service responsive?

People�s needs were regularly re-assessed to make sure they were still being met. Where the need for changes to a person�s care plan was identified, these were made promptly. Records confirmed that people�s preferences and diverse needs formed the basis of the care and support they received. A relative told us, �They help me with making appointments for him. They ring me straight away if there�s a problem�.

Is the service well-led?

The manager and staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and their roles and responsibilities. Quality assurance processes were in place to check standards were maintained. People were routinely consulted about their level of satisfaction and feedback was used to improve the quality of the service.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activity at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

Inspection carried out on 20 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found that the provider was not protecting people who use the service from the risks of unsafe use and management of medicines.

The provider had improved processes to report safeguarding issues and notify the Commission of significant events at the service.

Inspection carried out on 4, 9 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We found people who used the service were provided with personal care that met their needs. People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. Their comments included, �The carers are always there when I need them�; �They do everything I want, I�ve got nothing but praise for them all�; and, �They�ve helped me enormously. I don�t know what I�d do without them�.

Steps had been taken to identify and prevent abuse of people who used the service, but the process for reporting allegations of abuse was not fully robust.

People were supported in taking their prescribed medicines, but records did not always demonstrate that medicines had been given correctly.

Suitable arrangements had been made for managing the service and to make sure there were enough experienced staff to deliver people�s care.

The provider had not notified the Commission of significant events, including the absence of the registered manager and an allegation of abuse.

Inspection carried out on 12 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people living at Fountain Court. They told us they were asked for their consent before agreeing to their care. One person said, �They check I�m happy first.� Another person commented, �They always ask first.�

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. For example, one person remarked, �I think it is next to perfect � no complaints.� Another person said, �I rang my bell and they were there in a moment.�

People also made positive comments about the staff, and the comments we heard included: �I like the staff and I like the place, it�s lovely.� �They�re lovely, lovely lasses, they treat me nice.� and �I couldn�t praise the staff enough, they cannot do enough for you.

Inspection carried out on 2 December 2011

During a routine inspection

People using the service, and a relative, were complimentary about the support they received, and told us they were satisfied with the service. Their comments included, �They take good care of us�; �We�re very safe and secure here�; �The staff treat everyone as an individual�; �I�m perfectly content�; and, �They�re very kind and caring�.