You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 November 2017

Housing and Care 21- Rokeby Gardens is an extra care service that contains 52 self-contained flats. The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care to people living in these flats. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people using the service who required support with their personal care needs. People who required this care had a range of support needs, including older people living with dementia and people with disabilities.

We previously inspected the service in August 2016 and found breaches of the regulations in relation to quality assurance and the lack of person-centred care planning. The overall rating for the service was, "requires improvement." We asked the provider to tell us how and when they would make the required improvements. These actions have now been completed.

There was a manager in place who was in the process of being registered with CQC. Registered managers 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 service continued to provide safe care to people living in their own homes. Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding people from harm and followed the provider's policies to provide people's prescribed medicines safely. There were enough suitably skilled staff to meet people's needs. Staff had been recruited using safe recruitment practices.

The manager promoted a caring culture that was reflected in the comments made by people and the attitude of staff. Staff felt valued and well supported. The manager had good oversight of the service. Staff received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs and had access to development opportunities.

Staff had regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people's individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people's consent prior to care and support being provided. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) had been met.

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives. Where required, people had been supported to have enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were also supported to access other health services. People's needs had been assessed and they had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. People and their relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing people's care plans.

The provider had an effective system to handle complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, other professionals and staff. They also acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to help ensure any areas for improvement were identified and action taken to continuously improve the quality of the service provided. People told us they were regularly asked for their views about the quality of the service they received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 November 2017

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 November 2017

The service remains Good

Caring

Good

Updated 8 November 2017

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 November 2017

The service was Responsive.

People received person centred support and staff were responsive to their needs.

People's care plans were regularly reviewed and updated.

People were involved in their care planning and felt in control of the care and support they received.

People knew how to make suggestions and complaints about the care they received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 November 2017

The service was well led.

There was a clear management structure in place which people using the service and staff understood. Staff knew their roles and accountabilities within the structure.

There was an open and positive culture in the service and people were asked for their views about the service.

There was an effective quality monitoring system to check that the care provided met people's needs.