We carried out a review of the data available to us about Housing 21 - Shearman Court 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 Housing 21 - Shearman Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Housing and Care 21 – Shearman Court 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 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 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 our visit there were 11 people in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were happy with the service they received from Housing and Care 21 – Sherman Court. People complimented the continuity of their care which was provided by skilled and competent staff.
There were enough safely recruited staff to make sure that people had their needs met in a timely manner.
People felt safe when receiving care. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Where risks to people’s health and welfare had been identified, assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage and reduce these risks.
People were involved in planning their own care and their care plans reflected their individual needs and choices.
People received their medicine as prescribed and were supported to access health services when required.
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 by staff who had received training and support to carry out their job roles effectively. Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager.
Information from audits, incidents and quality checks were used to drive continuous improvements to the service people received.
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 10 March 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
The service provides personal care to people living in their own flats in a purpose built building. At the time of the inspection 66 people were living at the service, 31 of whom were supported with personal care. Everyone else who lived at the service managed their own needs independently, although some people made use of a daily welfare check. The service was set up to enable people to request and receive the amount of support they required as and when they needed it.
The service had 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.
There were systems in place to safeguard people from harm. Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities to report any matters of concern and were confident to do so. There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff about how risks to people could be minimised.
The provider had robust recruitment processes in place to ensure as far as possible, that suitable staff were employed. There were sufficient skilled staff to provide safe care to people.
Staff received supervision and support, and had training to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided.
The service did not provide meals although staff supported people to prepare meals where this was part of their care package. People were supported to access other health and social care services if required.
People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences and choices. There was a range of events and activities offered within the communal areas of the building which were based on people’s interests. People had good links with the local community and there was good information provided to people to enable them to know what events were available.
The provider encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service. The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and there were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.
We found that the care plans were reflective of people's care needs and were assessed to be specific to the care each person required. Where people had specific medical conditions such as epilepsy or a mental health condition staff had received training that ensured people's needs were supported safely.
The provider had good arrangements to promote effective performance of the service. People were asked to provide feedback about the care they received and were appropriately supported. Where improvements could be made the manager had a clear plan in place to ensure the improvements were achieved.
We saw that the registered manager showed clear leadership and that all staff were expected to provide a high quality of care to people. The provider ensured that there staff recruited to the service were appropriately appointed and were skilled to meet the needs of people who used the service.
We found that the needs and risks of people using the service had been assessed. Care plans were in place for everyone receiving personal care, but some had not been reviewed in line with the provider's policy. Staff had had access to good training and were competent in their caring role. However there were some gaps in terms of continual supervision and professional development. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff knew how to report suspected abuse. Staff expressed some concerns about reductions in senior care staff hours.