Housing 21 - Staveley Court

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they felt safe and were happy with the care and support they received. People told us staff were kind and treated them well.

At the last inspection in 2016 we found the provider’s systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service had not been operated effectively. During this inspection we found improvements had been made. An effective quality assurance process was in place. People and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service.

People were supported by a staff team who were trained and supported to carry out their roles. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. All the required checks were carried out before new staff started work. This helped to protect people from the risk of receiving care and support from staff unsuitable to work in a care setting.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. The manager and staff knew how to recognise and respond to any concerns about people’s safety and welfare.

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.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare were identified and managed.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff were respectful and supported people to maintain their independence.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place and people were aware of how to make a complaint.

Rating at last inspection: Good. (Last report published June 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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

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

We previously inspected the service in July 2013 and asked the provider to make improvements to their management of medicines and the training and support they provided to staff. We returned to the service in October 2013 and found improvements had been made and the provider was meeting the legal requirements inspected at that time.

Housing & Care 21 - Staveley Court provides a personal care service to people living in their own flats. This enables people living at Staveley Court housing complex to maintain their independence and stay in their own home. The main office is situated on the ground floor of the housing complex which is situated on the outskirts of Keighley. On the day of our inspection37 people received personal care from this service.

The registered manager had left their post approximately two weeks prior to our inspection. 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.

We concluded sufficient numbers of staff were employed to ensure people received safe and consistent care. The provider was recruiting additional bank care staff to cover short notice absences to ensure senior care staff had more office based time to complete their duties.

We concluded that overall the systems for administering medicines were safe. Following our inspection the provider contacted us to confirm they had taken action to produce more robust guidance regarding 'as required' medicines.

People told us they felt safe and effective arrangements were in place to protect people from abuse. Potential risks to people’s health and wellbeing were effectively assessed and managed.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s dietary preferences and the level of nutritional support people required. They provided effective support to ensure people consumed an appropriate diet.

Staff developed good working relationships with local healthcare professionals and worked with them where appropriate to ensure people’s individual healthcare needs were met.

People were cared for by staff who received regular training and development. People told us staff were caring and provided a good standard of care.

People were cared for by regular staff who knew them well. This enabled staff to develop a good understanding of how to meet people’s individual needs. Staff worked with people to help nurture their independent living skills.

People praised the flexibility of the service and said staff were responsive to their individual needs and circumstances.

Rotas were well organised. From our discussions with people and review of records we concluded that missed and late visits were not a feature of this service.

People’s views were regularly sought through residents meetings, care reviews and six monthly quality surveys. People’s feedback was listened to and acted upon.

Care staff were committed to the delivery of high quality care and consistently put the people who used the service first. There was an open and honest staff culture where staff sought opportunities to learn and improve their practices.

We found the senior care team were committed, professional and passionate about providing quality care. However, additional management support was needed whilst the registered manager’s position was recruited to. The registered manager’s duties had not been appropriately covered so it was not clear who had overall responsibility for driving improvements in the service.

Some care records needed improvement to ensure they contained accurate and complete information. Staff could not evidence that robust checks of care records had taken place.

Some of the systems and processes which audited the quality of care provided needed improvement. For example, daily notes were not checked in a timely manner and there was not a comprehensive audit of the medicines management system.

We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found staff were appropriately trained in order to undertake their role effectively. A range of training and other forms of support was available to staff.

We found staff treated people with dignity and respect and promoted people to be as independent as possible. The staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to treat people in a dignified and respectful manner.

We found people received appropriate care and welfare from the provider. Care records were detailed and thorough in recording people's needs, likes and preferences. This enabled staff to deliver care appropriately.

However, we found people were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have robust arrangements in place to record the administration of medicines.

We also found staff were out of date with some mandatory training which included infection control and medicines management.

We found the provider had suitable arrangements in place to monitor the quality of its service provision through feedback mechanisms from people who used the service and its staff. Audit systems were in place to monitor various aspects of the service which included staff performance.