We carried out a review of the data available to us about Housing 21 - Priory Court 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 - Priory Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Housing & Care 21 - Priory Court provides personal care to people living in flats in one community hub style complex. There were 34 people receiving personal care at the time of our inspection. 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
People told us they were very happy with the care and support they received and that the care staff were reliable, on time, caring. and well trained.
People received person centred support and staff knew people very well. People were supported to build and maintain important personal relationships that mattered to them.
The provider had systems in place for communicating with staff, people and relatives to ensure they were fully informed about important information. People had good links to the local community with the general public able to access post office and hairdresser services within the complex.
People were supported to be independent, their rights were respected and access to advocacy was regularly available. Support was provided in a way that put the people and their preferences first. Information was readily available for people in the correct format for them, including large print.
People were empowered to have a role in the management and development of the service via an active tenants committee.
Audits and monitoring systems were used effectively to manage the service and to make improvements.
There were enough staff to support people. Staff received support and a variety of appropriate training to meet people’s needs.
Individualised risk assessments were in place. Staff were confident to raise concerns appropriately to safeguard people. Robust recruitment and selection procedures reduced the risk of unsuitable staff being employed. Medicines were managed well, safely administered and recorded accurately.
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.
Appropriate healthcare professionals were included in people’s care and support. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 13 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Housing & Care 21 - Priory Court provides personal care for up to 41 people who have privately rented flats within an extra care housing facility and also to people in the wider community. At the time of the inspection there were 42 people in receipt of a service.
People said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew how to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns, helping 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 Care Quality Commission.
Staff provided safe care. There were sufficient staff employed to ensure continuity of care and the reliability of the service. New staff were subject to a robust recruitment process, including checks for criminal convictions. Staff managed medicines safely, with any errors dealt with promptly and appropriately.
Staff undertook training relevant for their role and the needs of people using the service. Training included care and safety related topics and refresher training was planned. Staff were well supported by their supervisors and the registered manager.
Staff sought people’s consent before providing care. The registered manager was aware of the principles and practice of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how they applied to this service. Support was provided with food and drink appropriate to the level of people's needs. 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 told us staff were kind and caring. 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 were person-centred and had sufficient detail to guide care practice. Staff were well informed about people’s changing needs. People and their relatives expressed satisfaction with the care provided.
Some activities were offered, although people using the service said they would like more diversity.
The service had a registered manager in post. The registered manager and senior staff implemented systems to monitor and manage quality, which included feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. Action had been taken, or was planned, where the need for improvement was identified. Records were organised and easily retrieved.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 6 and 8 January 2015. One breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach of regulation regarding assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.
We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the revised legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to this requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Housing and Care 21 - Priory Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We found the provider had met the majority of assurances they had given in their action plan and were no longer in breach of the regulation.
The standards of quality assessment and monitoring had improved since the last inspection and were of an acceptable standard. A new manager had been appointed and had applied for registration. 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 using the service (tenants) and staff made positive comments about the manager’s approach and the improvements they had brought to the service. There were now staff and ‘tenant’ meetings taking place regularly. People’s views on the quality of the service were being sought and acted upon. People using the service and staff felt informed about changes in the service. A new quality assurance system had been introduced, but withdrawn temporarily due to IT difficulties. We were assured this would be reintroduced as soon as these problems were resolved.
This inspection took place on 6 and 8 January 2015. This was an announced inspection. This means we gave the provider 24 hours’ notice because we needed to be sure that someone would be in at the office. We last inspected Priory Court on 17 Dec 2013 and found the service was meeting all the regulations we inspected against.
Housing & Care 21- Priory Court provides personal care for people living at Priory Court. At the time of the inspection there were 42 people receiving care at Priory Court. Priory Court is a housing scheme with an onsite team of care staff. The care people receive at Priory Court is regulated by the Care Quality Commission the accommodation is not. The staff were also providing support to two people who lived in a Housing and Care 21 sheltered housing scheme close by to Priory Court.
At the time of the inspection the manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission was not employed at Priory Court and their registration had not been cancelled. A registered manager from a different Housing and Care 21 service was in the process of adding Priory Court to their registration. They were overseeing the management of Priory Court with the support of two senior care staff.
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 told us they felt safe living at Priory Court and they were cared for by sufficient staff who had the right skills and knowledge to support them. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns.
Staff recruitment procedures were appropriate. Applicants were able to spend a day at Priory Court where they met and talked with people using the service and got to know what their role would involve. References and Disclosure and Barring Service checks were completed before people were offered employment.
Medicines were managed safely and people were included in decision making about which pharmacy to use for their prescriptions. Staff had received medicines training and their competency in handling medicines was assessed and observed by senior staff members.
Staff received regular supervision but some said they did not feel fully supported at the minute. Care staff at Priory Court told us that there was limited communication and support with regards to management changes. They had not had team meetings since September 2014 and felt isolated from decisions that were being made. This was having an impact on staff morale and staff felt there was a lack of leadership and transparency.
Mental capacity was understood and we saw that decisions made in people’s best interest were recorded. People and their families or representatives were involved in these meetings.
People were supported with eating and drinking where needed. Most people living at Priory Court chose to use the independent restaurant that was on site for their meals.
Everyone we spoke with told us that the staff were very caring and respected people’s rights and decisions. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and treatment and had signed their care records and gave permission for staff to speak to their doctors.
Care records were individual and contained information on people’s likes and dislikes, their family history and what was important to them. This meant documentation gave staff an understanding of the person as well as their care needs.
People told us they knew how to complain. Records were kept of any formal complaints received including whether the person was satisfied with the outcome of the investigation.
Day to day audits were in place but a full quality assurance audit of the service had not been completed since 2013. Many of the actions identified on the improvement plan had a completed by date assigned to them but there was no evidence that they had been signed off as complete by a senior manager as specified on the plan. This meant opportunities for improvements may have been missed.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We were able to observe the experiences of people who used the service. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. We saw that as they responded to any calls for assistance they spoke to people with courtesy and respect. We saw that they rang the bell or knocked on the doors of people's flats before they entered. In cases where people had their doors open staff would ask for permission before they entered.
We saw that the people using the service related well with the staff. We saw that the staff communicated effectively and appropriately with people, addressing them by the title of their choosing. The relatives we spoke to were positive about the care received by their relatives. People who used the service also told us that they felt safe in their homes. They described the arrangements for entering the scheme and their own individual flats. One person told us, 'I really like it here, I feel very safe'.
We saw that Priory Court had a number of communal lounges where activities took place. There was also a shop on the premises, a dining area with a caf', and a hairdresser's salon. We saw that staff were attentive and interacted well with people. People told us that they liked to make choices. On the day of the inspection we saw people supported to the communal dining room if they so desired.
In order to determine how care and treatment was provided we spoke with staff, observed their practices and looked at the records of ten people who used the service.
The manager had carried out a survey in January 2013 of each person who used the service. In the survey the people that used the service said that the care at the home good and that they service felt safe.
'The staff are all very friendly; they come and help me with the housework.'
'Staff are canny, the very best you can get.'
'It's alright here, I don't' have any complaints.'
'It's fine here; I just let the staff know if I want anything'.
We found that people were involved in their care and were treated with respect.
We found that people who used the service had their care and welfare needs met.
We found that staff were supported in their roles and had received training and guidance in supporting people. We found that people were safeguarded against abuse.
We found that staff had been well supported to deliver care and treatment safely.
We found that people's views were important and listened to. We found that there was an effective complaints system in place.
People received the care and support they needed, and people told us they were happy with the care and support they received. For example, one person remarked, 'I find the night time support reassuring.' Another person said, 'I'm happy with the help, it's alright for me.' People told us they received help with their medicines. One person noted, 'My medicine stocks are always available.' We found there were gaps and inconsistent recording practice in some people's medicine records.
Staff were polite, courteous and appropriately qualified. People also made positive comments about the staff, and the comments we heard included, 'They (the staff) work really hard.' and 'The (staff) are here for you.'