You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 6 September 2018

Steeple View provides care and support to people living in an ‘extra care’ housing scheme. Extra care housing is purpose built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care provided by the service. Not everyone living at Steeple View received the regulated activity of personal care. On the day of our inspection 35 people were receiving this service.

Steeple View consists of 36 one and two-bedroom self-contained apartments over two floors. The service is situated in a quiet rural area on the edge of the town of Stowmarket in Suffolk. The service provides support to people to live in their accommodation, with their own tenancy agreements. The aim of the service is to

provide high quality care and support at all times to enable people to remain living as independently as possible within their own homes.

At the last inspection in January 2017, we found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated activities) Regulations 2014. We were concerned the service was not consistently safe as the provider's recruitment procedures were ineffective. Pre-employment checks on new staff did not always identify gaps in employment and ensure references from the most recent employer had been provided. We asked the provider to take steps to improve and complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question of responsive. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. We viewed the staff recruitment records of six staff recruited since our last inspection. We found appropriate checks such as employment references had been undertaken prior to the staff member commencing employment.

People were provided with care and support according to their needs and any risks were identified and managed. People's care plans provided staff with the information they needed to support people and were personalised to reflect their preferences. Systems were in place to support people with their medicines where required. Staff understood the principles of mental capacity.

People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support from their line managers.

People's dignity, privacy and independence were respected and promoted. People were supported with their eating and drinking needs when needed. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when required and the service worked with a number of external agencies to ensure that people received joined up, consistent care.

People and their relatives had access to and were aware of the services complaints procedure. People were regularly asked for their views. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

The service was well-led and people were satisfied with the care and support provided. There was a quality assurance system in place to ensure the service was routinely audited and checked.

Inspection areas



Updated 6 September 2018

The service was safe.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs safely although there was a lot of use of agency staff

People who required support received their medicines as prescribed.



Updated 6 September 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who received supervision and suitable training for their role.

People's needs were holistically assessed and referrals made to health and social care professionals as needed.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and respected decisions people made about their care.



Updated 6 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff that were kind and compassionate and enjoyed their work.

People were treated with dignity and respect

People's privacy and dignity was respected.



Updated 6 September 2018

The service was responsive.

Care was personalised and care files reflected personal preferences.

Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider's policy. People knew who to speak to if they were unhappy about the service they received.



Updated 6 September 2018

The service was well-led.

The management team were approachable and had a visible presence in the service.

Systems were in place to monitor, assess and improve the quality of the service.