We carried out a review of the data available to us about Housing 21 - Paddy Geere 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 Housing 21 - Paddy Geere House, you can give feedback on this service.
Housing 21 - Paddy Geere House has 32 self-contained one bedroom apartments and four two bedroomed apartments arranged over two floors and is located in North West Ipswich. The accommodation is rented and is the occupant’s own home. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing. The building is owned and maintained by a housing association. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements.
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. At the time of the inspection Housing 21 - Paddy Geere House was providing personal care to 32 people.
We found the following examples of good practice.
We observed staff following good infection prevention and control practices including appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with government guidance to reduce the risk of infection.
Housing 21 - Paddy Geere House was clean throughout. This was being managed by the housing provider with increased cleaning taking place across all aspects of the service. This included ensuring all high touch points were regularly sanitised.
Windows and doors were observed to be open in the building to support with ventilation whilst a comfortable temperature was maintained.
Polices, and procedures were in place to assist the registered manager and staff to manage any risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
People living at Housing 21 - Paddy Geere House and staff were undertaking COVID-19 testing in line with Government guidance. Appropriate action had been taken if anyone contracted the virus including staff who were supported to self-isolate. Staff absence was being effectively managed where shift cover was required.
People had clear care plans in place in relation to COVID-19, this ensured risks could be mitigated and people could be supported in a personalised way.
During our last inspection on 25 March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 using the service told us that they felt safe. There were systems in place designed to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm. Personalised risk assessments were completed and updated as required.
The service continued to have robust recruitment procedures in place. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff had received training in the safe storage, recording and administration of medicines.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to infection control and food hygiene and they had received training in these areas.
Staff were knowledgeable and competent in their roles and were supported by way of supervision and appraisals, to provide feedback on performance and plan future personal development.
People were supported to maintain choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and to access health care services.
Staff were kind, respectful and maintained people's dignity and privacy. Positive relationships existed between people and staff. The staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported.
People were involved in planning their support and deciding how they were supported. People had detailed care plans, which reflected their needs and had been reviewed at regular intervals and after significant events.
People and staff knew how to raise concerns. Information regarding the complaints procedure was available in the reception area of the service. The service had a consistent process for receiving and recording complaints, concerns and compliments.
Quality assurance processes were in place. Feedback on the service was encouraged and people were provided with frequent opportunities to express their views on the care and support they received.
There was an open culture. People and staff found the registered manager supportive and approachable. The service sought the advice of other organisations upon management and quality assurance.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 25 March 2015 and was unannounced.
The service provides care and support to people living independently in 36 flats at Paddy Geere House. On the day of our inspection support was being provided to 31 people.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.’
The care service at Paddy Geere House is provided by Housing and Care 21. People have a rental agreement with Abbeyfield Orwell who own the flats. Abbeyfield Orwell also provide cleaning services, lunch time meals and entertainment for people living in the service.
People felt safe receiving support from the service. Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and were able to demonstrate a working knowledge of safeguarding procedures.
People’s care plans were reviewed annually and more frequently if changes were required. Risks to people from receiving care were addressed as part of their care planning. Although some risk assessments were seen to be generic and not relevant to the person.
There were sufficient staff to provide care which met people’s needs. Recruitment procedures were followed to ensure only people suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.
Medication was administered safely and as prescribed. Medication audits were carried out and where discrepancies or omissions were identified action was taken to address the cause.
Staff were provided with regular training, supervision and appraisals. This meant that they had been provided with the skills required to meet people's needs. The manager met staff regularly to discuss their work performance and plan their training and development needs.
People told us they were happy with the care that was provided and that it met their needs. They told us staff treated them with kindness and respect. Where appropriate people were supported to have a healthy diet and have sufficient to eat and drink.
Staff were supported by the manager. They described an open, friendly, caring culture where they were able to raise any issues or concerns that they had.
The management team monitored quality and safety of the service regularly and action was taken to address any deficiencies that were found and to improve the service.
People we spoke with said generally they were pleased with the support staff gave them with medicines. However, we found evidence of further errors and overall concerns with the way medicines were managed for people and recorded.
Care plans we inspected contained details of the support people required and care staff had signed to confirm they had read them.
We found that the service plans planned care in consultation with the person requiring the care and carried out risk assessments in relation to that care. Staff were appropriately trained and received regular supervision. However, staff had not signed the care plans to confirm they had read and understood people's care needs.
The service did not accurately record the administration of medication.
One person who we asked what they thought of the quality of care said, 'The carers are good, they do everything I want.' Another person told us that, 'The new manager is very helpful, she does what she can.'