We carried out a review of the data available to us about Southcroft 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 Southcroft, you can give feedback on this service.
Southcroft is a specialist ‘extra care’ housing scheme. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. Southcroft comprises 37 one-bedroom apartments, seven of which are for couples. Southcroft was built within the grounds of Psalter Lane Methodist Church. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to 10 people living at the scheme.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were happy with the care they received, and they told us they felt safe when receiving care from the service. Relatives agreed their family members were safe. People’s care visits took place at consistent times, to suit their preferences. There were systems in place to ensure people’s medicines were managed safely and people were protected from the risk of infection. Staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and other identified risks to people were assessed and mitigated.
Before people started receiving care from the service, their needs and preferences were assessed, to ensure the service could provide the level of care each person wanted. 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.
People were supported to receive adequate food and drink to remain healthy. People chose what they wanted to eat and drink. Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisal so they were skilled and competent to carry out their role.
People were treated with respect. Care plans recorded how people were involved in their care. Their views and wishes were at the centre of their support. Care plans provided detailed direction to enable staff to deliver care which respected people's privacy and dignity. Daily notes recorded how staff encouraged people's independence.
Staff were proactive in engaging people with individual activities of their preferred choice. People told us they were able to join in activities provided in Southcroft if they wished. People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. People told us the service was flexible and their preferences were adhered to. Systems were in place to deal promptly and appropriately with any complaints or concerns.
The manager and provider regularly sought feedback from people and relatives to ensure the service was tailored to their needs and preferences. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and the safety of the service provided.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 28 October 2020).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection. We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated good and outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Southcroft is a specialist ‘extra care’ housing scheme. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. Southcroft comprises 37 one bedroom apartments, seven of which are for couples. Southcroft was built within the grounds of Psalter lane Methodist Church. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to 14 adults living at the scheme.
People’s experience of using this service
At the last inspection we found staff had not received regular supervisions and did not feel well supported. We also found we had not always been notified of significant events in line with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. Staff told us they were well supported and received regular supervision. The registered manager has submitted notifications in line with the act.
At this inspection we found the service was consistently managed and well-led. The service promoted high-quality, person-centred care. People and relatives spoken with made positive comments about the quality of care provided and the staff. Comments included, “If [family member] needs help, she just pulls the cord and the staff are there. They are brilliant,” “The manager is a breath of fresh air. She is a lovely outstanding person” and “The staff are all good, but there are some special ones.”
Support was provided by the same core group of staff, which promoted good continuity of care. Staff were recruited safely, and appropriate checks were carried out to protect people from the risk of being supported by unsuitable staff. Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were managed safely at the service. Staff had received infection control training and COVID- 19 training.
People were consulted and listened to about their care and support needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People were supported to maintain a balanced and varied diet to promote their health and respect their personal preferences. There was oversight of people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration. People were supported to maintain good health and have access to health and social care services as required.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. The service actively engaged and sought the views of people, their relatives and staff to improve service delivery.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 25 May 2019). At this inspection we found improvements had been made.
Why we inspected
We undertook this focused inspection to check the service had improved. This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions, safe, effective and well-led.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Southcroft on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Southcroft is a specialist ‘extra care’ housing scheme that was providing personal care to 16 adults at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People spoke positively about the staff. One person told us, “This is a wonderful place, all the staff are lovely. I feel lucky to live here.”
Staff did not receive regular supervisions and yearly appraisals in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure. Staff told us they would like more support.
There were enough staff available to ensure people’s needs were met. The provider had safe recruitment procedures in place to make sure staff had the required skills and were of suitable character and background.
Procedures were in place to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed.
People were consulted and listened to about their care and support needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People told us they enjoyed the food served at Southcroft. People were supported to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain good health and have access to health and social care services as required.
There was a range of activities available to people.
People and staff were asked for their opinion of the quality of the service via regular meetings and annual surveys.
The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.
More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection:
Good (report published on 14 October 2016). The overall rating has dropped to Requires Improvement at this inspection.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 14 people living at Southcroft. One person had just started using the service. We spoke with six people by telephone to obtain their views of the support provided.
We spoke with the registered manager and the administrator during the inspection. We telephoned eight care staff and were able to speak with three of them to obtain their views and experience of working for this service.
The registered manager was given short notice of our inspection. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office and we needed to be sure that they would be available.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service was last inspected on 15 April 2014 and was meeting the requirements of the regulations we checked at that time. This was the first rated inspection of the service.
People had risk assessments in place, which were designed to ensure that potential risks to people were managed and minimised whilst still promoting independence. People told us their care plans were regularly reviewed to meet their changing needs.
We saw there were sufficient staff to provide support to people using the service. The service employed permanent and relief staff. The registered manager told us the provider employed relief staff so they did not need to use agency staff to cover for unexpected staff absences and annual leave. People told us they would like to be supported by regular staff and know who would be supporting them each day. We shared this feedback with the registered manager.
Systems were in place to manage people’s medicines
Four people spoken with were satisfied with the quality of care they had received. Two people expressed mixed views about the quality of care they had received. One person thought that the training of the relief staff could be improved so that it was of the same standard as the permanent staff. Another person described how some staff would move items around without telling them. The person thought this was well intentioned but they could not find things and if things needed to be moved they could do it themselves. We shared this feedback with the registered manager so appropriate action could be taken.
People were supported with their health and dietary needs, where this was part of their plan of care. Some people were supported to attend hospital appointments and appointments at their GP.
A copy of the service activity events calendar was displayed in different areas of the service. The activities included: craft morning, coffee mornings in the service’s Bistro, knitter natter, salvation army visit, games night in the lounge and film and music night in the lounge.
People made very positive comments about the staff. Their comments included “they [staff] are very nice, them that come, they don’t gossip about anyone, well they don’t have the time”, “it’s lovely, they are all nice ladies [staff]” and “when you go down for lunch they ask you how you are”. We also received positive comments about the chaplain who was employed by the service.
We received positive comments about the chaplain who was employed by the service. People’s comments included: “the chaplain is very nice” and “the chaplain is lovely, a true Christian and so very pleasant to you”.
Recruitment procedures were in place but we found the provider had failed to obtain the full work history and a reference from one person’s most recent employer. We spoke with the registered manager who assured us these would be obtained and they would contact the registered provider’s human resource team.
Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and senior staff working at the service.
Staff spoken with were able to describe people’s individual needs and their likes and dislikes. During the inspection we saw staff supporting people in the communal areas of the service. They were respectful, cheerful and interacted positively with people they were providing care to.
The provider had a complaint’s process in place. We found the service had a robust process in place to enable them to respond to people and/or their representative’s concerns, investigate them and take action to address their concerns.
There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.
There were regular resident meetings held at the service. The provider had also sent out a survey in 2015 which included a section on personal care. This told us the service actively sought out the views of people to continuously improve the service.
This is a summary of what we found-
Is the service safe?
People spoken with told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect and that they felt "safe".
All staff spoken with were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and the action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. We saw that the service had a process in place to respond to and to record safeguarding concerns. We found that the service had a copy of the local protocols and followed them to safeguard people from harm.
We found the arrangements in place to record people's financial transactions needed to be more robust to safeguard people who used the service from financial abuse.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their care plans. We found that the service had not reviewed one person's care plan and risk assessments in response to their needs changing. The manager assured us that the person's care plan and risk assessment would be reviewed following the inspection.
We spoke with the manager who told us that a representative from each of the three floors attended the support meetings at the service. It was the floor representative's responsibility to gain the views of other people living on their floor. We looked at the minutes of the support meeting held in November 2013. We saw that the group had a budget which they could use to purchase items. There was a range of topics discussed at the meeting including the accounts and planning an event. This told us the service actively sought out the views of people.
Is the service caring?
We observed staff giving care and assistance to people in the communal areas. They were respectful and treated people in a caring and supportive way. We spoke with two members of staff who were able to describe how they maintained people's privacy and dignity whilst providing personal care support. They also told us how they promoted choice and independence. One staff member commented: 'I always ask what they [people] want doing, if they are independent I don't want to take anything away from them'.
People spoken with were satisfied with the quality of care they had received and made positive comments about the staff. Their comments included: 'very good, can't find fault with the staff', 'all the staff are very friendly, no problems at all', 'when I wasn't well somebody came to help me to have a shower', 'when I came out of hospital I had such wonderful care', 'the way they helped me today was excellent', 'there is nowhere better than this place' and 'when I needed help they were there, now I am a bit more independent I have started making my own meals again'.
People's personal preferences and interests were recorded in care plans and support was being provided in accordance with people's wishes.
We saw that the service promoted people's wellbeing by taking account of their needs including daytime activities.
Is the service responsive?
People spoken with told us that staff respected their privacy and treated them with dignity and respect. People expressed how much they valued having their own flat and being able to maintain their privacy. One person commented: 'it's lovely to have your own space and privacy'. People also told us that staff respected their decisions. One person commented: 'they [the staff] respect your decisions; I choose what I want to do and what activities to join in'.
A copy of the service's complaints procedure was included in people's care plans. People told us if they had any concerns they would raise these with the manager of Southcroft or alternatively with the registered manager who visited the service regularly.
Is the service well-led?
We saw that staff training and supervisions were being monitored. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
We saw that there was a range of quality monitoring checks in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from audit checks. These checks included the following: health and safety, medication and care plan audits. We found the medication and care plan checks could be more robust to ensure people received a good quality of service and appropriate care.