Archived: Flourish House

Updated 9 February 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 17 January 2017 and was announced. The inspection was carried out by three adult social care inspectors. The provider was given notice because the location provides a supported living service and extra housing scheme for people who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Prior and following the inspection we reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the service and notifications we had received.

During the inspection we visited seven people in their own homes, and spoke with four relatives. Following the inspection we contacted 17 people who were using the service by telephone, to discuss their experience of using the service and two external health professionals who were involved in supporting people who used the service. We spoke with three members of the senior management team, two registered managers, one service manager, three team leaders and six members of staff.

We looked at the care records of ten people who used the service and recruitment records for ten staff members. We looked at records which related to people’s individual care and the running of the service. Records seen included seven care and support plans, quality audits and action plans, and records of meetings and staff training. The management and administration of people’s medicines, health and safety and quality assurance.

Updated 9 February 2017

This inspection was announced and took place on 17 January 2017. The provider was given notice of inspection to ensure the registered managers would be available to meet us at the provider’s office, and also to make arrangements for us to visit some of the people in their own homes with their permission.

The last inspection of the service was carried out on 17 July 2014. No concerns were identified with the care being provided to people at that inspection.

Flourish House is part of Aster Living and operates four extra care schemes for elderly people and a supported living service for people with learning disabilities. Extra care schemes and supported living services allows people to live independently while getting the care and support they need. A total of 152 people may be catered for. Flourish House also operates a domiciliary care service to provide person care for people living in extra care schemes, if this is required.

There were two registered managers in post, one to manage the supported living service in Somerset, and one to manage the extra care scheme in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. 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 provider and senior management team were open and approachable and supported people receiving a service and staff well. People and their relatives were very complimentary about the quality of the service provided and about the management and staff team. They felt the care was good. One person told us, “Carers are a 100%. They know their job and they’ve got passion for everything they do”.

People had positive relationships with the staff members who supported them. Staff knew peoples’ individual histories, likes and dislikes and things that were important to them. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and information personal to them was treated in confidence. People felt they received support from familiar and consistent care workers. They told us they would recommend the service to other people.

There were systems in place which provided guidance for staff on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Comprehensive risk assessments were in place in all care records. They included a wide range of areas: including communication; medical conditions; medication; diet; independence; continence; memory, self-neglect. There were separate risk assessments regarding environmental risks.

Where people required assistance to take their medicines, there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely. There were clear protocols to show at what level the assistance was required, for example just prompting or reminding the person to take prescribed medication from a blister pack.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Care workers were caring and respectful and had good relationships with the people they cared for. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support and people received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.

Where people required assistance with their dietary needs, there were systems in place to provide this support safely. One person told us, “We do a weekly shop and plan our menu each week with staff”. Staff confirmed they tried to ensure a healthy balanced diet was promoted whilst recognising choice.

Care plans showed people had access to healthcare professionals including doctors, community nurses, speech and language therapists, opticians and chiropodists.

A complaints procedure was in place and people’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service. Each person received a copy of the complaints procedure including in easy read format once commencing the service.

There was good leadership in the service. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were addressed and used to promote on-going improvement. People were kept up to date about any changes to the service by meetings, newsletter and discussions.