Housing 21 - Queensridge Court

Updated 12 April 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and one Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their area of expertise was domiciliary care.

Service and service type:

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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

Our inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit. We needed to be sure the registered manager would be available to facilitate this inspection. Inspection site visit activity started on 20 March 2019 and ended on 21 March 2019. We visited the site on both days to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records, policies and procedures.

What we did:

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information, we held about the service, including statutory notifications. Notifications are used to inform CQC about certain changes, events or incidents that occur. We requested feedback from stakeholders. These included the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form providers are required to send us which contains key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During our inspection, we spoke with the operations manager, the registered manager, an assistant care manager, four staff members and the activity co-ordinator. We spoke with seven people who used the service, one relative and a visitor. We reviewed documents and records that related to the management of the service. We looked at five people’s care plans, a range of policies, procedures and guidance used by staff in their role, records of safeguarding, accidents, incidents and complaints, audits and quality assurance reports. We reviewed two staff member files and records associated with the management and administration of people’s medicines.

Updated 12 April 2019

About the service: Housing & Care 21 - Queensridge Court provides extra care housing provision for people aged 55 years and over. The service provides personal care and support to people within a complex of flats. Staff provide care at pre-arranged times and people have access to call bells for staff to respond whenever additional help is required. People have access to communal facilities including a lounge and a restaurant, which offers hot and cold meals daily. At the time of our visit the service was providing personal care and support to 43 people.

People’s experience of using this service:

People and relatives told us they felt safe in their flat and with staff. People were supported safely and protected from harm. There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people. The management of medicines was safe, staff had completed training and audits were completed. Staff followed infection prevention and control guidance when supporting people. Lessons were learnt, through accident, incident, safeguarding and complaints. These were shared with staff members to ensure changes were made to staff practice, to reduce the risk of further occurrences.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. An induction was completed by new staff. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to perform their roles effectively. Recruitment processes were in place and followed.

Staff involved healthcare professionals to support people's health needs where required. People received support, with eating and drinking, when needed. 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. Staff gained people's consent before providing support.

People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. The registered manager and staff team were extremely focused on people’s human rights being respected and people living the life they wished to live. Staff showed a genuine motivation to deliver support in a person-centred way and described how individual people preferred their support delivered. Staff told us about the importance of treating people with dignity and respect. Initial assessments were carried out to ensure people’s needs could be met. Support plans showed people were involved in their support and they contained appropriate detail for staff to provide effective care and support.

People, relatives and staff had the opportunity to provide feedback about the service. Information was provided so people knew who to speak with if they had concerns. There was a system in place to respond to any complaints. The registered manager worked in partnership with other services to support people quality of life, when needed. Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of service and action was taken where areas for improvement had been found.

Rating at last inspection: Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good. (published 6 May 2016). The overall rating has remained the same.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating of good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through information we receive. Further inspections will be planned for future dates as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk