• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Housing 21 - Springtide Cove

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Dock Street, Monkwearmouth, Sunderland, Tyne And Wear, SR6 0EA 0370 192 4491

Provided and run by:
Housing 21

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 25 April 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: The inspection team consisted of an inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type: Housing & Care 21 - Springtide Cove provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation can be bought or rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: We gave short notice of the inspection visit because we needed to ask people for permission to visit them in their own homes and to be sure staff would be available to assist us to access records.

What we did: Before we visited the service, we reviewed information we held about the service such as when the provider told us about serious injuries or events. We contacted commissioners to seek their feedback. We received no information of concern.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We visited the service on 5 March 2019. During the inspection we spoke with 13 people who used the service and two relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, assistant care manager and four care assistants.

We looked at a selection of records which included;

• Three people’s care records

• Three people's medication administration records.

• Staff recruitment and training and supervision records for two staff.

• Records of accidents, incidents, complaints and compliments.

• Audits and quality assurance reports.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 25 April 2019

About the service: The service is a supported living service. The service provided personal care to people living in their own flats at an extra care housing complex. There are 53 flats within the scheme (one and two bedroomed). At the time of the inspection there were 32 people who used the service.

People’s experience of using this service: People told us they felt safe and were happy with the care and service received. People received their care from a small consistent staff team who they could build trusting relationships with.

There were enough staff employed and on duty at any one time to meet the needs of people. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed, and risk assessments were in place. The registered manager understood their responsibilities about safeguarding. Arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines.

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. However, the record keeping for this needed improvement as there were no mental capacity assessments or recordings of best interest decisions. We pointed this out to the registered manager who told us they would take immediate action to address this.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and experience to help them to maintain and develop their independence. Staff treated people as individuals and respected their privacy and lifestyle choices.

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

An effective quality assurance process was in place. People and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service.

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

Rating at last inspection: Good (Last report published 14 September 2016).

Why we inspected: We inspected the service as part of our inspection schedule for ‘Good’ rated services.

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.