You are here

Creative Support - Sue Starkey House & Shipton House Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 March 2018

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 15, 16, 18 and 19 January 2018. At our last inspection in October 2016 we rated this service “Requires Improvement”. At this inspection we found that the service was now “Good”.

Sue Starkey House and Shipton House 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 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 service.

People using the service lived in one of two blocks of flats in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Sue Starkey House consists of 32 self-contained single flats and eight double flats and Shipton House consists of 13 single flats. Both buildings have shared facilities such as a communal lounge and kitchen, laundry rooms and bathrooms and staff offices.

Not everyone using this service receives 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 our inspection the service was providing personal care to 30 people, including older people and people with physical and learning disabilities.

The service had a registered manager, who was the provider’s manager for the area. 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.

At our previous inspection we made a recommendation about how the service carried out checks of people’s finances and the equipment that was used to provide care. There were now systems in place to make sure that equipment was safe and that finances were checked to protect people from loss or financial abuse. Managers had systems in place to ensure that staff understood what was required of them and communicated well, and checked that care was delivered as planned. Managers investigated and made changes when things had gone wrong.

People were supported to express their views about the service and managers took action accordingly. We saw that complaints were investigated and appropriate measures taken when these were upheld.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and avoidable harm, and had worked with the police and local authority to address current issues which may affect people’s safety. We found that people received their medicines safely, although audits did not always detect some problems with recording.

There were suitable numbers of staff on duty who were recruited in line with best practice. We found that at Sue Starkey House there was a high reliance on agency staff, and the provider was attempting to recruit new care workers to address this. People told us that staff were kind and treated them with respect; some people expressed concerns about staff skills in relation to cooking which managers were addressing through making information available and providing additional training. There were measures in place to make sure that care workers received essential training and managers checked they had the right skills and knowledge.

People’s care was designed and delivered in a way which met their needs, but we found that care plans were not always clear about people’s needs around continence. People received the right support to eat and drink and to stay well. There were varied and interesting activities programmes in place and this was a high organisational priority. We found that keyworki

Inspection areas



Updated 15 March 2018

There were measures in place to promote a safe service.

The provider operated effective measures to safeguard people from abuse and to learn when things had gone wrong.

Staffing levels were adequate to meet people�s needs and appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out.

Medicines were safely managed and checked by staff.



Updated 15 March 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and supervision to carry out their roles. There were measures in place to promote good health and ensure that people had enough to eat and drink.

People�s needs were assessed as part of the support planning process and there was evidence that people had consented to their care.



Updated 15 March 2018

The service was caring.

People told us that staff treated them with kindness and respected their privacy. There were measures to promote and reflect on dignity.

People were supported to speak up, and there was evidence of this on people�s plans including life story work.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 March 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People�s care was delivered as planned in line with people�s needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly but sometimes did not always accurately describe the support people actually received.

There were detailed and imaginative activities programmes in place. Keyworking sessions were in the process of being implemented but were not yet fully effective.

Managers had processes for recording and investigating complaints and taking appropriate action in response to these.



Updated 15 March 2018

The service was well led.

Managers had systems in place to ensure good communication and to clearly explain their expectations of care workers.

Care notes were audited to make sure care was delivered as planned. There were systems of engagement such as tenants meetings and surveys and the service listened to people�s views and took action.