Background to this inspection
Updated
10 December 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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection team was made up of one 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 21 – Gildacre Fields is an extra care housing scheme. This service provides personal care to people living in their own bungalows and apartments within the scheme.
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. The RM had been recently promoted into a regional role but was still overseeing the service. A manager was in post to operate the service daily. They were in the process of applying to become registered with CQC.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because people are often out and we wanted to be sure there would be people at home to speak with us.
Inspection activity took place on 29 October 2019. We spoke with people who used the service and their family members, visited the office location and spoke with staff.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We also contacted Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.
During the inspection
We spoke with nine people and two relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with six members of staff including the manager, two assistant care managers and three care workers.
We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records and six people’s medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures, were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.
Updated
10 December 2019
About the service
Housing 21 – Gildacre Fields is an extra care housing scheme that provides personal care and support to people. At the time of the inspection the service supported 50 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives spoke positively about the service and felt it was safe. People told us, “The staff really look after me” and “The carers are here if you need them.” Risks were managed in a safe way. Staff were recruited in a safe way and there were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines. Staff were confident how to safeguard people from potential abuse and safeguarding alerts were raised in a timely way. The provider learned from previous accidents and incidents to reduce future risks.
People’s needs were assessed before they started receiving support from the service. Staff received regular training and felt supported through scheduled supervisions and annual appraisals. People‘s nutritional needs were met and they had access to a range of health care professionals. 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 treated people with dignity and respect. One person said, “The staff are very good, if I need anything, they are there. They always ring the door bell and let me know who is outside before entering” People were encouraged to maintain their independence where possible. Information about advocacy services was available for people. The manager told us they would support people to access appropriate advocacy services if they needed them.
People’s plans of care were person-centred and detailed to inform staff how they wished to be supported. People and relatives knew how to raise any concerns, and any complaints received were fully investigated and subsequent action was taken.
People and relatives were happy with the service and felt it was managed well. The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place which included regular audits. People and relatives were regularly consulted about the quality of the service through surveys and meetings. Staff were involved in the ongoing development and improvement of the service through regular meetings.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 4 May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.