You are here

Housing 21 - Alice Bye Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 29 February 2020

About the service

Housing 21 Alice Bye Court is a domiciliary care agency. This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. Alice Bye Court contains 51 flats on one purpose-built site. The accommodation is bought or rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing, this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. Not everyone using the service receives personal care. For example, 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 inspection, the service was providing care and support to 32 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People had been exposed to the risks associated with the unsafe management of medicines. Staff had not consistently administered medicines safely and people had not always received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had not consistently followed the provider’s policies and procedures to ensure medicines were managed safely, in accordance with current guidance and regulations.

Governance and performance management was not always reliable and effective and quality assurance was not always applied consistently. People’s developing risks were not always managed safely. The provider had recently created an action plan to drive improvement in the management of incidents to safeguard people. However, the management team had failed to always effectively analyse incidents and put measures in place to prevent future occurrences. This meant people were exposed to further potential risk of harm because immediate action was not always taken to mitigate risks.

Support for staff from the management team was inconsistent. There were low levels of staff satisfaction and a lack of confidence in the management team, with most staff feeling they were not listened to, valued or respected.

Equality and diversity were not consistently addressed by the management team, which had led staff to feel they were not always treated fairly.

The provider had completed thorough pre-employment checks to make sure staff had the appropriate skills and character to support vulnerable people in their own homes. The manager ensured enough staff were deployed, with the right mix of skills to deliver care and support to meet people’s needs safely. The service did not use agency staff. Staff adhered to the provider’s infection control policy and used the appropriate equipment and clothing, whenever required. Staff had completed food safety training and correct procedures were followed wherever food was prepared.

Staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. The registered manager operated a system of training, supervision, appraisal and competency assessments, which enabled staff to provide good quality care. Staff promoted people's health by supporting people to access health care services when required and by encouraging people to eat a healthy diet.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported /did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported/ did not support this practice.

Staff effectively involved people in decisions about their care, which ensured their human rights were upheld.

Staff consistently treated people with kindness and respect. People were supported to express their views about their care and their wishes were respected. People's privacy and dignity were respected and promoted during the delivery of their care.

People received personalised care

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 29 February 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 29 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.