• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Town Close

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

North Road, Stokesley, North Yorkshire, TS9 5DH (01642) 713864

Provided and run by:
North Yorkshire Council

All Inspections

22 September 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 26 September 2017 and was announced. The provider was given notice because the location provides support in an extra care scheme and we needed to be sure someone would be available in the office to answer our questions. Calls to people who used the service took place on 22 September 2017.

Town Close registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in December 2012 for the regulated activity of personal care. The service is based in Stokesley and is an extra care housing scheme. They offer personal care and support to people who live in apartments on-site. At the time of this inspection there were 21 people who were receiving support with personal care.

At the last inspection in July 2015, we rated the service as Good overall, but identified that improvements were required in the safe domain. We found medicines were not managed safely and a number of errors had occurred. Staff were not provided with sufficient information with regard to medicines and the possible side effects. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made; the number of medicine errors had reduced and a thorough audit system ensured action was taken when errors occurred.

The service did not have a registered manager. However, an application to register with CQC had been completed by the service manager and was being processed. 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 service manager and team leader were present throughout this inspection.

Safeguarding concerns had been managed appropriately. A safeguarding policy was in place to protect people from the risk of harm. All staff we spoke with were aware of the procedure to follow if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Recruitment procedures had been followed to ensure staff were safe to work and did not pose a potential risk to people who used the service.

Risk assessments were completed in relation to people’s individual needs. The risk assessments guided staff on what actions to take to minimise the risks to people, such as ensuring they had their lifeline pendent on, whilst also promoting their independence. Risk assessments had been updated when changes occurred to ensure they recorded people’s current needs.

People told us they trusted staff and felt safe in their care.

There was a process for completing and recording staff supervisions and competency assessments. Systems in place ensured staff received the training and experience they required to carry out their roles. A range of training was provided to ensure staff were able to effectively carry out their roles. New staff were given the opportunity to work alongside senior staff to build relationships with people.

Some people were supported by staff with meal preparation and where possible people’s independence was recorded and promoted in this area. Care records contained clear guidance for staff to follow with regard to nutrition.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were aware of the procedure to follow if they suspected a person lacked capacity to make decisions.

Any concerns that staff had regarding people were recorded in daily notes. People told us that staff contacted relevant professionals such as GP’s, in a timely manner, when this was needed.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect; they were supported by a regular team of staff who knew their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff had built relationships with people based on their knowledge of people’s personal histories and medical conditions.

The provider had an effective system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. All the people we spoke with were able to explain who they would contact if they had any concerns and were confident this would be dealt with effectively.

Staff were kept informed about the operation of the service through regular staff meetings and weekly newsletters. Staff we spoke with told us they felt well supported by the management and felt they had an open and honest approach. They were confident that any concerns raised would be dealt with in a professional manner.

The team leader completed a number of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve the standards of the service in areas such as medicines and daily visit reports. Action had been taken when concerns were found, although this was not always clearly recorded.

People were given the opportunity to provide feedback about the service and satisfaction surveys were distributed annually.

The service manager had a good understanding of their role and responsibilities .They understood when notifications were required to be submitted to CQC. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the registered provider is legally obliged to tell us about within the required timescales.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

30 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 30 July 2015 and was announced.

Town Close provides services under the regulated activity of ‘personal care’. There are two extra care housing schemes located in Stokesley and Brompton in North Yorkshire. These offer personal care and support to people who live in apartments on each site. The other service is the START (Short Term Assessment and Reablement Team) service. This provides focused, short term domiciliary support, to help people regain maximum independence after illness or hospital admission. All services are carried on and managed from the registered location at Town Close.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

There had been a number of recent errors in medicine administration and not all staff felt confident in dealing with medicines. There was a lack of clear and accessible information available to staff about what medicine was for and how it may affect people. The risks associated with medicine administration identified during our inspection meant that there was not a proper and safe system for the management of medicines. We identified this as a breach of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and you can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Criminal background checks were undertaken before people started work. The provider carried out background checks on new members of staff before they started work. This was to make sure they had the necessary skills and were of suitable character to work in the care sector.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and how to protect people from harm. There were plans in place to identify risks due to people’s health or mobility and to make sure these were minimised.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and were aware of individual preferences. Staff received an induction when they started and there was regular training to make sure they had the skills required to carry out their roles effectively.

The registered manager and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are safeguards put in place to protect people where their freedom of movement is restricted. There were no restrictions at the time of our inspection and we saw that appropriate action was taken if any concerns about this were identified.

People were supported to maintain their health and had access to services such as a GP or dentist when needed. Where people needed support with eating and drinking appropriate professionals were involved.

People told us that they were well cared for and that they received the support they needed. Staff were described as “Kind” and “Lovely”. People said that they were treated with dignity and respect at all times. There were opportunities for people to express their preferences about the support they wanted and these were accommodated in the way care was given.

People had their needs assessed before they started at the service and a plan of care was agreed. Care and support was reviewed regularly to make sure it met people’s needs and any changes were identified and acted on if required. People knew who to go to if they were unhappy about any aspect of the service and the provider responded to complaints and concerns appropriately.

There was conflicting feedback from staff about how well the team worked together and the support provided by management. It was clear there were some differences between the START and extra care staff and that these had not been fully resolved. This had had a negative impact on the morale of some staff. The management team were aware of current issues within the team and were looking at ways to make improvements.

20 November 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we spoke to seven people who used the service and one relative of a person who used the service.

People were provided with information about the services available to them and involved in decisions about their care and support. Comments made by people who used the service included 'They were very clear about everything' and 'I've found they've treated me as a person, not like a number.'

People had their care needs assessed and planned, and received a reliable service. People's comments about their care included 'Very, very reliable", "They do what you want them to do, I'm quite content with the service", 'They always see that I am comfortable' and "We are quite happy with the care we are getting."

People were protected because staff had received training on recognising and reporting abuse and took appropriate action if they suspected abuse might be occurring.

Staff were supported to do their jobs well, through relevant training and support. People told us that staff were competent and professional in their work. People's comments about staff included 'Professional and pleasant' and "All good natured."

Systems were in place to gather feedback from people who used the service and monitor the quality of the service. Comments made to us included 'We could always go and have a chat in the office if needed", "Very approachable (the management)' and "They told me how to make a complaint, gave me a number I could ring up."