We carried out a review of the data available to us about Battersea Place Retirement Village Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Battersea Place Retirement Village Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Battersea Place Retirement Village Limited provides a domiciliary care service for older people living in 103 apartments on site.
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. At the time of the inspection, out of the 105 occupied apartments, 10 people were receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We found some aspects of care planning was inconsistent. Although, the provider provided reassurance to us after the inspection they had taken steps to rectify the issues found, these issues could have been identified and corrected earlier.
People told us they were happy with the standard and delivery of care they received. They told us they felt safe and secure. Care workers had received training in safeguarding and infection control and were aware of what they would do to protect people from harm and poor infection control practice. There were enough care workers employed to provide safe and timely care to people and recruitment procedures were robust. Risks to people were identified and care plans were in place to manage potential risks.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Care workers received training that was relevant to their role. They were competency assessed on their ability to administer medicines effectively. People using the service were independent in managing their nutritional and general healthcare needs themselves, but care workers supported them if required. Where people’s needs changed, the provider carried out assessments which helped to ensure care was delivered in a way that met their needs. People told us they were involved in planning and consenting to their care.
People said that care workers were kind and compassionate and treated them well. Care workers were recruited based on the caring values they demonstrated during their recruitment. People were supported to maintain their independence. People’s views were considered, and they were able to express their views through meetings and resident committees.
People told us they led active, independent lives and there was a good activities program available to them if they chose to take part. No formal complaints had been raised, people felt confident that if they did these would be considered, and appropriate action taken.
There had been some changes in the management of the service with a newly recruited registered manager and head of care. People and care workers told us these changes did not have an impact on the delivery of care. They felt that the registered manager was approachable and a good manager. Quality assurance checks took place, these were effective in identifying areas of improvement which were included in a service improvement plan.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 2 June 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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was a registered manager at 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.
Battersea Place Retirement Village Limited provides a domiciliary care service for older people living in 105 apartments on site. At the time of the inspection, out of the 105 occupied apartments, only eight people were receiving personal care.
People and their relatives were satisfied with the service. They said the healthcare assistants understood their needs, were caring and they felt safe in their presence. They said they were always on time and stayed beyond their allocated time if they needed more help.
People were able to maintain relationships that were important to them. Family and friends were encouraged to visit and a guest apartment was available for people to book in advance if needed.
People led independent lives, making use of the opportunities on offer in the way of entertainment and activities such as a gym, swimming pool, cinema, craft room and library. Activities included aqua aerobics and Tai chi.
Staff recruitment procedures were robust and staff files included completed application forms, interview evaluation forms, references, proof of identity and address and DBS checks.
Healthcare assistants received a thorough induction based on the Care Certificate, which prepared them well for their role. They demonstrated a caring attitude and told us they felt well supported by their colleagues and managers.
Healthcare assistants said they liked working for the organisation and in their conversations with us it was clear they understood the organisation’s values.
People told us they were involved in their care plan reviews and were able to make a choice and have control over the support they required. They said the provider was flexible and accommodated their needs.
The provider utilised an electronic care plan system and each healthcare assistant was issued with a smartphone which they used to clock in and out, and checked off their tasks every time they visited a person to support them. This system allowed the managers to have an overview of when visits were carried out and if healthcare assistants attended visits on time. It also provided them with real-time information about the personal care tasks that had been provided at any particular time.
There were both long and short term care plans in place for people, short term plans were used to manage a specific aspect such as managing pressure sores or wound care. Each aspect of care, whether long or short term included the current need, outcome and action.
Standard risk assessments such as waterlow for pressure sores, moving and handling and the risk of falls were in place and reviewed regularly. If any areas indicated a high risk there was an associated care plan in place to manage the risk.
People’s healthcare needs were met by the provider. People were able to either retain their existing GP or to register with the visiting GP. There were two clinic rooms on site which were available for the visiting GP to use. Care records included people’s medical histories and observations. Daily record charts documenting visits from doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals were maintained.
There was an open culture within the service. People and their relatives were aware of the managers within the service and said they felt comfortable approaching them.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service and drive forward improvements. These included monthly clinical governance reports, any compliments or complaints, care plan and medicines audits and monitoring of response times to call bell alerts.
The provider had just completed a resident’s survey about their views of the service. We reviewed the raw data from the survey and noted that feedback about the service people received was positive.