You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The inspection was carried out on 21 September 2017 and 04 October 2017. The inspection was announced.

Prospect Place is a housing with care (HWC) scheme for up to 70 people, with a dedicated Domiciliary Care team provided by Everycare (Medway & Swale) Ltd. People lived in flats within the scheme. At the time of this inspection, personal care was provided to 36 people. Others remained independent. The care team assisted people to maintain their independence by helping them with personal care tasks. Some people had more complex health conditions and higher care needs. Each flat was fitted with emergency call facilities, such as a lifeline telephone. A lift was available to take people between floors.

There was a registered manager employed 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.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005). The registered manager understood when the MCA 2005 code of practice needed to be used so that decisions people made about their care or medical treatment were dealt with lawfully.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse. The management team had access to and understood the safeguarding policies of the local authority and followed the safeguarding processes.

The registered manager and care staff used their experience and knowledge of people’s needs to assess how they planned people’s care to maintain their safety, health and wellbeing. Risks were assessed and management plans implemented by staff to protect people from harm.

There were policies and a procedure in place for the safe administration of medicines. Staff followed these policies and had been trained to administer medicines safely.

People had access to GPs and their health and wellbeing was supported by prompt referrals and access to medical care if they became unwell.

Staff provided friendly compassionate care and support. People were involved in how their care was planned and delivered. People told us they had built good friendly relationships with staff and that staff often made them feel better with their cheerful care.

The registered manager planned people’s care by assessing their needs and then by asking people if they were happy with the care they received. Staff knew people well and people had been asked about who they were and about their life experiences. Staff upheld people’s right to choose who was involved in their care and people’s right to do things for themselves was respected.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and checked by the registered manager to see what steps could be taken to prevent these happening again. The risks in the service had been assessed and staff understood the actions they needed to take to minimise them.

Managers planned for emergencies, so that should they happen people’s care needs would continue to be met. Emergency lifeline and staff on call systems were in place. The premises and equipment in the service were well maintained by the separate housing provider.

Recruitment policies were in place. Safe recruitment practices had been followed before staff started working at the service. The registered manager employed enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs. Staffing levels were kept under constant review as people’s needs changed.

When required staff supported people to maintain their health by making sure people had enough to eat and drink. Staff received training about infection control and their work practice minimised the risk of cross infection.

If people complained they were listened to and the registered manager made chang

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they experienced safe care. Systems were in place to manage risk. Medicines were administered by competent staff.

The registered manager and staff were committed to preventing abuse.

Recruitment for new staff was robust and sufficient. There were suitable numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who knew their needs well.

Staff met with their managers to discuss their work performance and staff had attained the skills they required to carry out their role.

The registered manager and staff had completed training in respect of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood their responsibilities under the Act.

Staff understood their responsibly to help people maintain their health and wellbeing. This included monitoring nutrition and hydration for some people.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was caring.

People forged good relationships with staff so that they were comfortable and felt well treated.

People were treated as individuals and able to make choices about their care.

People experienced care from staff who respected their privacy, dignity and choice.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People were provided with care when they needed it based on assessments and the development of a care plan about them.

Information about people was updated frequently and with their involvement so that staff only provided care that met the person’s needs.

People knew how to complain or make suggestions and these were acted on by the registered manager.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was well led.

The service had benefited from consistent and stable management who were focused on the quality of service delivery.

The provider and registered manager promoted person centred values within the service. People were asked their views about the quality of all aspects of the care they received.

Systems were in place to monitor and review quality and risks.