You are here

Housing 21 - Springhill Court Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 3 November 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 3 November 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care services and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office. Telephone calls to people who used the service also took place on 3 November 2017. A second day of inspection took place on 15 November which was also announced.

Housing & Care 21 – Springhill Court is based in Easingwold near York. Some people who received support live in apartments located on the site in Easingwold. Housing & Care 21 are also the housing association that is responsible for the accommodation. This is called extra-care. Other people live out in the community in their own homes and Housing & Care 21 staff go out and visit them to support with personal care. At the time of this inspection, the service was providing support to 18 people at the extra care location and 13 people in the community.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

There was a manager in post who had registered with CQC. At the time of this inspection, they were unavailable. The area manager and deputy manager assisted throughout the inspection.

People were protected from the risk of harm. Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and risk assessments had been developed when needed to reduce the risk of harm occurring. Medicines were managed safely. Staff had their competencies in this area assessed. Safe recruitment procedures had been followed. There was enough staff on duty to support people safely. Staff had access to personal protective equipment and staff promoted good infection control practices.

New staff completed a thorough induction when they joined the service. Training records for all staff were up to date and staff were given the opportunity to attend specialist training to improve their knowledge and skills. Staff were supported by management though a regular system of supervisions to monitor their performance. Where needed, people were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People told us they had access to their own, preferred GP. People were empowered to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People spoke positively about the caring nature of staff and the support they received. People were treated with dignity and their choices were respected by staff.

Care records were person-centred and contained all relevant information to enable staff to provide personalised care and support. People were aware of their care plans and their content and signed documentation evidenced that consent was sought. A comprehensive complaint procedure was in place which had been followed.

People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the management team. Satisfaction surveys had been distributed to gain the views of people who used the service. Action had been taken where required. Quality assurance processes were in place and conducted on a regular basis to enable the service to continuously improve.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 1 December 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 30 September 2015. We found that the service required improvement to become safe. This was because the systems for medicine administration did not protect people from the associated risks. We identified this as a breach of Regulation 12 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. After the inspection the provider submitted an action plan telling us the action they would take to make the required improvements.

This inspection was focussed to review the progress made by the provider in making sure people were kept safe from the risks associated with medicines management. This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Housing & Care 21 – Springhill Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This focussed inspection took place on 1 December 2016 and was unannounced.

Housing & Care 21 – Springhill Court provides personal care and support to older people who live in their own apartments. Some of the people who used the service were living with dementia. Apartments are located on one site in Easingwold around an office and communal areas. The aim of the service is to support people to live independently.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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 system for administering medicines had been improved to make sure that people received their medicines safely. Medicine records were clearly written and provided staff with the detail they needed. There were systems in place to identify any errors although we found one recent gap in recording which had not been identified. The registered manager took appropriate action in relation to this, which included staff refresher training in medicines administration. The staff we spoke with were confident about administering medicines in practice. This meant that the previous breach of Regulation 12 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had now been met.

Staff were confident about how to protect people from harm and understood how to identify if anyone was at risk of harm. Staff had received training in medicine administration and were kept aware of any changes or updates to procedure. Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to keep risks to a minimum.

Inspection carried out on 30 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 30 September 2015 and was announced. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered in September 2014.

Housing & Care 21 – Springhill Court provides personal care and support to older people who live in their own accommodation. Some of the people who use the service are living with dementia. There are two aspects of the service. Some people who receive support live in apartments located on the site in Easingwold around an office and communal areas. This is called extra-care. Other people live out in the community in their own homes and care staff go out to visit them. The aim of the service is to support people to live independently. The service currently provides personal care to 18 people who receive extra-care and 20 people who live in the community.

A registered manager was in post. 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 system for administering medicines required improvement to keep people safe from potential risks. We identified discrepancies in medicine administration for one person which had not been picked up by the service and which could have had a serious impact on the person’s well-being. The risks associated with medicine administration identified during our inspection meant that there was not proper and safe management of medicines. This was a breach of Regulation 12 HSCA 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.

People told us they felt safe at the service. Staff were confident about how to protect people from harm and what they would do if they had any safeguarding concerns. Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to keep risks to a minimum. People had portable alarms which they could use in the event of a problem or emergency.

There were enough staff on duty to make sure people’s needs were met. The provider had robust recruitment procedures to make sure staff had the required skills and were of suitable character and background.

Staff told us they liked working at the service and that there was good team work. Staff were supported through training, regular supervisions and team meetings to help them carry out their roles effectively. Staff were supported by an open and accessible management team.

The manager and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are put in place to protect people where their freedom of movement is restricted. There were no DoLS restrictions at the time of our inspection.

There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the service. People told us that staff were caring and that their privacy and dignity were respected. Care plans were person centred and showed that individual preferences were taken into account. Care plans gave clear directions to staff about the support people required to have their needs met. People were supported to maintain their health and to access health services if needed.

People’s needs were regularly reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the support people received. People had opportunities to make comments about the service and how it could be improved.

There were effective management arrangements in place. The registered manager had a good oversight of the service and was aware of areas of practice that needed to be improved. There were systems in place to look at the quality of the service provided and action was taken where shortfalls were identified.