Archived: Anderton Place Extra Care Scheme

This service 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 is 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 services.

People using the service lived in a large community on the outskirts of Northwich. The premises included a communal area, café and a hair salon which people were able to access. 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.

At the time of the inspection there were 14 people who were in receipt of ‘personal care’.

There was a registered manager in post within the service. 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.

During the inspection we identified that monitoring and oversight systems needed to be more robust. For example, the registered manager had a good level of knowledge regarding accidents and incidents, however a written analysis had not been recorded. This meant that if she was unavailable this knowledge could be lost. In addition, neither the registered manager or the area manager knew how to generate a report from the registered provider’s system, to provide a clear overview of accidents and incidents and allow trends to be identified.

Training had been provided to staff, however during the inspection the registered manager and area manager were not able to locate dates training had been completed. Instead there was a reliance on the system to identify when this was needed. This showed a lack of robust oversight that allowed for possible errors to be made. Following the inspection the registered manager was able to provide evidence that training had been completed.

A survey had been completed around people’s experiences of the service. This survey identified a level of dissatisfaction in a number of areas. However the results relating to Anderton Place were mixed with the results from a neighbouring service. The manager informed us it was not usual practice to separate the results which meant it was not possible to get a clear understanding of people’s experiences.

We have made a recommendation to the registered provider regarding their oversight and monitoring systems.

There were sufficient numbers of staff in post to meet people’s needs. People told us staff were on time and spent the required amount of time with them. This was an improvement following our previous inspection where people raised concerns regarding the number of staff in post and the timeliness of calls.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had access to the registered provider’s policy and procedures which outlined how they should respond to any concerns they have.

The registered provider had a robust recruitment process in place. This helped ensure that staff were of good character and suitable to support vulnerable groups of people.

Staff had received the training they needed to carry out their role effectively. There was an induction process in place for new staff which included a period of shadowing experienced members of staff. This helped prepare staff for their role.

Staff had received training in food hygiene and people told us they were clean, tidy and hygienic when preparing food. People also commented that staff tidied up and left their kitchens clean when they were done.

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.

Positive relationships had been developed between staff and people using the service. People spoke positively about staff and we observed friendly interactions between them.

People’s confidentiality was protected; however, a more robust system was needed to minimise the potential for breaches in privacy. This was because people walked freely in and out the office where confidential discussions were held. We raised this with the registered manager and area manager for them to address.

People each had a personal care record in place which outlined their needs, the tasks required of staff and people’s personal preferences. This ensured staff had access to relevant information about people. People confirmed that staff provided them with the support they needed.

There was a complaints process in place for people and their families to use. People commented they felt able to make a complaint if they wanted to.

Staff meetings were held on a regular basis. This allowed information to be shared across the staff team and enabled discussions regarding best practice. For example, during one staff meeting a discussion regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Lasting Power of Attorney had been held.

The registered provider is required by law to notify the CQC of specific events that occur within the service. Prior to and during the inspection we checked to ensure this was being done and found that it was.

Anderton Place Extra Care Scheme is a domiciliary care service providing support to adults within the Anderton Place complex. The care and support is provided by Allied Healthcare. The Housing Provider is the Guinness Partnership . Anderton Place was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 August 2015 and this was their first inspection. There are 59 apartments and all have access to staff in an emergency. At the time of the inspection 34 people were in receipt of personal care.

There was a registered manager in place at this service. They had been registered since September 2015. 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 the staff were caring, kind and helpful. People said “The staff are good”, “The staff are kind”, “The staff do a good job” and “I am happy with the service.”

Quality assurance processes were in place at local and regional level. However, audits of care folder documentation undertaken by senior care staff was not robust enough to identify concerns highlighted during the inspection

People told us that on occasions there had been problems with the support they had received. Some calls been moved to a different day or time. There had been instances when people who used the service had been “upset” by the impact of insufficient staff. Out of hours staff told us they would contact the senior care assistant or the registered manager .

Staff had received training that included moving and handling, safeguarding, medication and fire awareness. Training on specific conditions or requirements of people who used the service had not always been undertaken but written information was available for reference. Staff attended an induction process prior to working alone and staff told us that they had the information they needed to perform their role.

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.

Staff supervision sessions, annual appraisals and staff meetings had occurred regularly and records confirmed this.

Care plans were person centred and gave staff good information on people’s needs and preferences. Various risk assessments were undertaken which included moving and handling, falls and the environment. These were reviewed regularly and up to date. The management of medication was safe.

Staff were aware of how to report a safeguarding concern. They were aware of the policies and procedures available to safeguard people from harm and told us they would not hesitate to report any concerns.

Staff recruitment files showed that satisfactory recruitment processes were in place.

People had access to information about the service. They said that they knew the information was in their care folder and some people had read this. An initial visit was undertaken by the registered manager prior to the service starting.

A complaints policy was available and each person had this information within the care folder. Processes were in place to deal with any complaints received.