Archived: Human Support Group Limited - Village 135

Updated 17 March 2018

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

Inspection site visit activity started on 9 January 2018 and ended on 10 January 2018 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection was conducted by one inspector and two experts-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.

As part of our inspection, we reviewed the information we already held about the provider, including notifications. Providers are required by law to notify the Care Quality Commission about specific events and incidents that occur, including serious injuries to people receiving care and any safeguarding matters. These help us to plan our inspection.

We contacted the local authority that commissions services and the local Healthwatch to seek their feedback. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We received no negative feedback about this service.

We spent time in the office talking with the registered manager, team leader and staff, reviewing care records and policies and procedures. We spoke with people using the service, their relatives and staff on site and visited four people in their apartments, with their permission, to observe staff interaction and to gauge people’s views on the service being provided.

We carried out observations of how people were supported during our visits to people in their apartments and listened to staff interacting with people living at the scheme throughout the day. During our visit we also looked at four people's care records, four staff files and a selection of records maintained by the registered manager, for example audits, competency assessments and minutes of staff meetings, regarding the quality and safety of the service.

Updated 17 March 2018

This inspection took place on 9 and 10 January 2018 and the first day was unannounced. This was the first inspection of this service, which was registered in April 2017.

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. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

People using the service lived in two bedroomed apartments in a purpose-built development close to the centre of Wythenshawe. Village 135 is a joint venture between a number of stakeholders, including a community housing group and the local authority. The Human Support Group Limited are contracted to provide care and support for those that need it, along with emergency response responsibilities for everyone living at the village.

Not everyone using The Human Support Group Limited – Village 135, referred to in this report as Human Support Group, 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.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection, who had been in post since the service first registered in April 2017. 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.

Some areas of Village 135 were accessible to the general public. The scheme was a secure environment with doors that required a fob to access areas such as the lift and apartment blocks. People regarded it as a very safe place. Residents were able to move easily between the floors of Village 135.

People were kept safe with the appropriate use of key safes, correct use of electronic call monitoring and the safe administration of medicines. Risk assessments were both generic and person-specific and staff were provided with sufficient information to mitigate risks posed to people.

There were enough staff on duty to help keep people safe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to infection control and took appropriate measures to minimise the spread of infection.

There was a thorough induction for staff, including undertaking shifts which involved shadowing more experienced colleagues. Staff were competent and knew what they were doing when providing care and support. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and demonstrated a commitment to promoting the rights and choices of people who used the service.

The registered manager maintained appropriate links with other professionals and partner agencies in order to effect a smooth transition for people moving into the extra care scheme. Staff attended to people in a timely manner in the event of an emergency and were very responsive on these occasions. People were assisted to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when necessary, therefore we were assured that the service promoted the health and wellbeing of everybody living at the village.

Staff never assumed with regard to people’s preferences of care when carrying out their duties and we heard people being offered choices. Care workers knew people well, their preferred routines and other family members who were important to them.

Staff were fully aware of the need to promote dignity and told us they cared for people as they would care for a family member. Staff always knocked and announced their presence even when gaining access to apartments with a key from a key safe. The service sought to deliver care and support in a way that was non-discriminatory and respected personal preferences and we saw that this aim was achieved.

People, their families and healthcare professionals had been involved in a pre-assessment before the service provided any support. Assessments were used to create care and support plans that addressed the individual’s identified needs. People told us they had been involved in developing their care plan.

People's support plans and risk assessments included information about their health conditions, and were sufficiently detailed for staff. This enabled staff to understand people's conditions and how best to support people. Support plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated regularly, or when support needs changed.

The service tried to be as flexible as possible in meeting people’s needs. We saw that people’s call times were flexed based on changes to their daily lives whenever this was possible.

The service did not arrange specific activities within the scheme; however management and staff were fully aware of the arranged activities that were on offer for people as they attended the residents meetings and both encouraged and supported people to access specific activities. If anything was raised about the care on offer in meetings representatives from the service were able to respond.

The provider kept a complaints record however, at the time of this inspection no complaints were recorded. People told us that if they were unhappy they would not hesitate in speaking with the registered manager or a member of staff.

The company’s revised mission statement outlined the values and behaviours expected from its staff. The registered manager was able to effectively demonstrate each of these behaviours and provided robust evidence as to how solutions were sought, discussed, achieved and put into action once a problem was identified.

Staff were complimentary of the registered manager. Staff went on to tell us that the registered manager was always looking for further development opportunities for the team to help them with the caring role. Staff received supervisions and team meetings were held frequently to provide staff with the opportunity to discuss learning and for the registered manager and senior staff to share any concerns and best practice.

There were regular audits of comments book and medication administration record (MAR) charts, and surveys were undertaken to measure people’s opinions about the quality of the service on offer. The registered manager was always looking at ways to continually improve the service.