We carried out a review of the data available to us about Flowers House 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 Flowers House, you can give feedback on this service.
Flowers House is an Extra Care housing service registered to provide personal care support for older people who have a diagnosis of dementia. The scheme has 34 apartments. 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 our inspection there were 32 people receiving personal care.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People received safe care and were protected against avoidable harm, neglect and discrimination. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and strategies were put in place to reduce the risks.
People received support from staff who had undergone a robust recruitment process. They were supported by regular live-in staff who knew them and their needs well, which promoted continuity of care. Where the provider took on the responsibility, people's medicines were safely managed. Systems were in place to control and prevent the spread of infection.
People’s needs, and choices were fully assessed before they received a care package. Staff received an induction and ongoing training that enabled them to have the skills and knowledge to provide effective care.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and well-being. Staff placed a strong emphasis on the dining experience to ensure it was enjoyed by all. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and access healthcare services.
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.
The service had a vibrant and welcoming atmosphere where visitors were welcomed and encouraged. Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well and had built up kind and compassionate relationships with them.
People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of people’s care and support. People's privacy and dignity was always maintained.
Care plans were detailed and supported staff to provide personalised care. People were encouraged to take part in a variety of activities and interests of their choice. There was a complaints procedure in place and systems to deal with complaints effectively. The service provided appropriate end of life care to people when required.
The service was well managed. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and actions were taken, and improvements were made when required. Everyone without exception praised highly the registered manager who was approachable, resourceful and provided strong leadership. All staff told us they
were motivated to work with the registered manager to ensure people received good quality care.
The service worked in partnership with outside agencies. Staff, people using the services and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback which was analysed and acted upon.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 15 August 2017)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.
The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and ongoing professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.
People developed positive relationships with staff, who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage complaints.
The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the service. People, their relatives and staff told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide managerial oversight and leadership to the service. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.
Flowers House is registered to provide support for older people who require personal care, and have a diagnosis of dementia, in their own homes. On the day of our visit, there were 31 people receiving care and support.
The inspection was announced and took place on 10 July 2015.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
People were protected from abuse and felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and knew how to respond appropriately to any concerns to keep people safe.
Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and were detailed clearly within people’s care plans. Staff used these to assist people to remain as independent as possible
There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed.
Systems were in place to ensure that medicines were administered and handled safely.
Staff received on-going training. They were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities and had the skills and experience required to support people with their care needs.
We found that, where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions, consent had been obtained in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.
People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and they were supported to make choices about their food and drink if this was an assessed part of their package of care.
People were supported to attend health appointments when required and to see health and social care professionals as and when required. Prompt action was taken in response to illness or changes in people’s physical and mental health.
Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion and cared for them according to their individual needs.
Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.
People told us their needs were met and they were supported to take part in meaningful activities and pursue hobbies and interests.
Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences and we received positive feedback from relatives about the service provided by staff.
People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to, and were confident that the service would listen to them. The registered manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints in accordance with the provider’s complaints procedure.
We saw that people were encouraged to have their say about how the quality of services could be improved and were positive about the leadership provided by the manager. We found that a system of audits, and reviews were also used to good effect in monitoring performance and managing risks.
The service benefitted from good leadership and staff were positive in their desire to provide good quality care for people. The registered manager demonstrated a clear vision and set of values based on person centred care and independence.
We spoke with five relatives of people that used the service. They were all happy with the service their relatives received. One relative told us 'The care is really good, and all of the carers know (my relative) well.' Another relative told us 'The staff can't do enough to help you and they're flexible to meet our needs'.
We spoke with four staff members who all told us that they felt well supported on their roles and that they received regular supervisions.
We found that people's needs had been assessed and they had care and support plans in place that included their preferences and ensured that their needs would be met. We saw that risk assessments had been carried out and control measures had been put in place to reduce the risks associated with their care.
We found that there was a detailed safeguarding policy in place and staff had a sound understanding of their responsibilities under the policy. We saw that annual appraisals had been carried out. We found that the provider carried out surveys to obtain feedback about the service and we saw evidence items that the provider had acted upon following feedback received.