We carried out a review of the data available to us about ExtraCare Charitable Trust Lark Hill Village 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 ExtraCare Charitable Trust Lark Hill Village, you can give feedback on this service.
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. 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 service.
Not everyone using ExtraCare Charitable Trust Lark Hill Village receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. 58 people were receiving regulated activity at the time of our inspection.
The service is required to have 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. The manager had started at the service in September 2017. At the time of our inspection visit the manager was not registered but was going through the process to become registered. Since the inspection visit the manager has completed their registration with the CQC.
At the last inspection in August 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Staff knew how to keep people safe and understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks were managed so that people were protected from avoidable harm and were not unnecessarily restricted. Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices.
Medicines were safely managed and people were protected against the risk of infection. Themes and trends in relation to accidents and incidents were reviewed and investigations of specific incidents were carried out.
People’s needs and choices were assessed and care was delivered in a way that helped to prevent discrimination. This was in line with evidence based guidance however positional charts were not always fully completed. Staff received appropriate induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People received sufficient to eat and drink, but food and fluid charts were not always fully completed.
People’s healthcare needs were monitored and responded to appropriately. External professionals were involved where appropriate. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were cared for by staff who were kind. People were involved in decisions about their care and support and information had been made available in accessible formats. Advocacy information was not easily available to people. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.
People were involved in planning their care and support. People were treated equally, without discrimination. The manager had limited knowledge of the Accessible Information Standard, however efforts had been made to ensure people with communication needs and/or sensory impairment received appropriate support.
Staff were aware of people’s interests, hobbies and preferences; staff took steps to ensure people enjoyed meaningful activities and stayed connected to their local community. Complaints were handled appropriately. Processes were in place for supporting people with end of life care where appropriate.
A clear vision and values for the service were in place. Staff felt well supported by the manager. The provider was meeting their regulatory responsibilities.
People and their relatives were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. Systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided were effective.
This inspection took place on 4 August 2015 and was unannounced.
ExtraCare Charitable Trust Lark Hill Village is a complex of 327 apartments and bungalows. People who live at the service have the option of having personal care, as well as support with housekeeping and social activities provided, by staff who work there. There were 61 people receiving support with their care at the time of our inspection.
There is a registered manager and he was available during the inspection. 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 who used the service felt safe and staff knew how to identify potential signs of abuse. Systems were in place for staff to identify and manage risks and respond to accidents and incidents. The premises were managed to keep people safe. Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and they were recruited through safe recruitment practices. Medicines were safely managed.
Staff received appropriate induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People received sufficient to eat and drink and external professionals were involved in people’s care as appropriate.
Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care.
People received personalised care that met their needs. Care records provided sufficient information for staff to provide personalised care. A wide range of activities were available. A complaints process was in place and staff knew how to respond to complaints.
People were involved or had opportunity to be involved in the development of the service. Staff told us they would be confident raising any concerns with the management and that the registered manager would take action. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.
A pharmacist inspector from the Care Quality Commission visited the service on 11 October 2013. This was in order to look at medicine management.
We spoke with one person about how their medicines were managed. They told us ‘’they are a good team who recognise any problems with my medicines. If there is a problem it is referred to the Team Leader who will take responsibility to sort it out.’’ We spoke with one member of staff who agreed that the team worked well with good support from management if there was a problem ‘’24 hours a day’’.
We found that arrangements were in place to ensure that medicines were managed safely.
The people we spoke with all told us they received good quality, safe care. One person commented, "The staff will go the extra mile to make sure I am looked after in the right way."
We found the quality of nursing care provided to be proactive, well planned and this resulted in safe care being delivered which ensured people's health and wellbeing was promoted. A relative told us, "The nurse is excellent, she has been helping us liaise with the GP and has attended clinics and appointments."
We found people were assessed for equipment to meet their needs and enable staff to provide care in a safe way. We found the staff did visual checks to make sure the equipment was safe for use and it was also regularly serviced and checked for electrical safety. This meant people were protected from unnecessary risks.
The people we spoke with all told us that they thought there were enough staff available to meet their needs effectively and on time. They all agreed the staff provided care in an unhurried manner. One person commented, "I get the full amount of time. I am never rushed by staff. From my point of view there are enough staff." The staff told us they felt valued and respected. They were proud of the service they delivered.
All of the people we spoke with told us the staff were polite, respectful and helpful. Some of the people we spoke with needed assistance with personal care tasks and they all told us that the staff made them feel comfortable during this process. One person commented to us, "The staff make me feel comfortable, and I feel they respect my dignity. I assist them where I can to maintain my independence."
Most of the people we spoke with told us they had recently had a review of their care plan which had resulted in a change to both the time of their call and the amount of time the carers were with them. They all said these changes had been discussed with them. However, almost all of the people we spoke with said that the time they were allocated was insufficient to ensure their care was delivered in line with the agreed care plan. They all said that this meant some tasks were not done. The examples we were given included laundry not being done and the cleaning was not being undertaken. The people we spoke with were all very satisfied with the care they were receiving. They all told us if they had to press their call alarm for any reason the carers responded quickly and with patience. People who received care and support from the nurses told us this was well planned and they said that all of their nursing needs were met well. We saw that there was specialist equipment in place to meet people's healthcare needs.
The people we spoke with all said they felt safe with the staff who worked at the service. Two people said they had reported issues in the past and said they were satisfied that the issues were taken seriously and matters fully investigated. They both said they were happy with the response from the managers. One person commented, "I feel safe with the staff; if we were worried I would speak to a team leader. We have raised an issue and been very satisfied with the response."
People were all very positive about the staff. They told us the staff were friendly, helpful and kind. One person told us, "The majority of staff are good and some of them are excellent their attitude is of willingness and commitment." All of the people we spoke with told us that in their opinion there were not enough staff to meet the needs of people receiving a service. They all said the staff often arrived late and were rushing to complete jobs. People told us this was having an impact on them. One person said that they often felt hungry in an evening, around supper time, but as they were aware of the limited time staff had they would choose something to eat which was quick, rather than this being what they wanted to eat to enable staff to get to their next job.
Some of the people we spoke with had made complaints and they said the manager had dealt with these professionally and effectively. They were satisfied with the response.
One person told us, "We have complained a couple of times and they have always responded well."
Comments included, 'I was involved in drawing up my own support plan, I read it before it was implemented. I think at the present time in terms of my health we will take all of the decisions, the staff would respect that decision I am sure.' 'I feel very safe with the carers. I've never felt concerned about the staff or their attitude. They are good at their job and good to talk to. Any concerns are dealt with immediately.'