The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Housing & Care 21 - Mora Burnett House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

37 Winchester Road, Swiss Cottage, London, NW3 3NJ 0370 192 4000

Provided and run by:
Housing 21

All Inspections

2 & 26 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Housing & Care 21 - Mora Burnett House provides extra care housing to people living in the Camden area. There were 35 individual flats and the service housed 25 people at the time of our inspection. The service provides 24 hour care for older people, people living with dementia, people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health difficulty, physical disability and sensory impairment.

This inspection was short notice which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming until shortly before we visited the service. At the last inspection on 5 August 2014 the provider met all of the requirements we looked at.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 using the service told us they felt safe and were happy living there. We saw people were looked after by staff who knew them, gave them individual attention and looked at providing additional assistance as and when required.

We observed staff, with one exception, behaving in a caring manner towards people and people told us that staff were caring and kind. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and their individual preferences. There were people of different nationalities living at the service and people were not discriminated against due to their heritage, cultural or religious beliefs, illness or disability.

We found that staff received training to support them with their role when they joined the service and on a continuous basis to ensure they could meet people’s needs effectively.

People told us they were supported to maintain their independence and maintain their life skills with no more than the minimum support from staff that was required to help them retain their independence.

People received regular assessments of their needs and any identified risks. The service worked well with external agencies and people’s families and friends when people came to the end of their life so that they were given the care they wanted, were treated with compassion and had those who they wished around them.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and said they were visible and could be easily contacted.

At this inspection we made one recommendation, which you can see in the “caring” section of this report.

5 August 2014

During a routine inspection

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The inspection was unannounced. At our last inspection on the 1 April 2014 the service was meeting all regulations inspected and some improvements had been made to records.

Housing & Care 21 - Mora Burnett House provides extra care housing to people living in the Camden area. There were 35 individual flats and the service housed 31 people at the time of our inspection. The service provides 24 hour care for older people, people living with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health, physical disabilities and sensory impairment.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 using the service told us they felt safe and were happy living there. We saw people were looked after by staff who listened to what they wanted and were able to help people with their daily lives if they needed or wanted extra support. Relatives liked that there was a member of staff available at all times to support their family members.

We observed staff behaving in a caring manner towards people and people told us how kind staff were to them and said they would check to see if they were okay in their home. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and their individual preferences. There were people of different nationalities living at the service and people were not discriminated against due to their illness or disability.

We found that staff received training to support them with their role when they joined the service and on a continuous basis to ensure they could meet people’s needs effectively. However, we noted that staff were not aware of the implications of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff did not realise that they may have to apply to external agencies for decisions to be made in people’s best interests to keep them safe.

People told us they supported to maintain their independence and had learned new skills while at the service. External stakeholders confirmed this and said how this had had a positive impact on people’s lives and well-being.

People received regular assessments of their needs and any identified risks and the service worked well with external agencies when people came to the end of their life so that they were given the care they wanted and treated with compassion.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and said they were visible and could be easily contacted. External stakeholders also commented positively about how well the service was run and the good working relationships that had been built between the staff and registered manager of the service.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We had a telephone conversation with the provider. We had also received an action plan which confirmed that information about the people using the service was reliable and easily to access. The provider's action plan included the introduction of "hard backed communication books per [person using the service] including numbered pages to ensure sequential entries", communication with the provider's Quality Assurance Team about the concerns raised at the inspection and audit of communication books.

We also discussed the provider's record keeping system with staff from the local authority who informed us that they had no concerns relating to this.

17 December 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited the service in response to a concern we had recently received. We spoke with the registered manager, a member of staff and one person who used the service. We also looked at people's care records.

The person we spoke with was positive about the service. They told us that the 'service is not bad' and 'staff do a good job'. They said they knew staff recorded whenever they had a contact with them and 'we [people who used the service] can look at our records if we want'.

We saw that the service had a data protection policy and all staff and people's files were securely stored in locked filing cabinets. However, we noted that some records were not accurate and there was no consistency in record keeping. We asked the provider to take action to ensure that people who used the service were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment arising from a lack of proper information about them.

12 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to four people who used the service, two support workers and the manager. We checked the files of three people and four staff members. We looked at the policies and procedures of the service and observed staff communication with people who used the service.

Care plans were developed and reviewed for people who used the service. People were satisfied with their care and treatment. A person said 'I can do what I want'. People felt that staff were available to help them with their needs. They stated staff were 'nice' and they could talk to them if they had a problem.

There were effective staff recruitment systems in place to ensure staff employed had appropriate experience, training and support to care for people who used the service. People's welfare was ensured because staff were properly vetted before they were employed, and were aware of the service's safeguarding policy.

17 August 2012

During a routine inspection

We observed care and spoke to four of the people using the service. Some people were out attending day activities when we visited and this meant that we did not see or speak to them.

All the people we spoke with were positive about the service. They told us staff treated them with respect and dignity. People said they could make decisions on issues affecting their lives. They told us they could choose what to eat, how to spend time and how they wanted to be supported.

People told us they were involved in the planning of their care. They said they were visited by friends and family, and they could travel independently to places. They told us staff informed them if there were any changes to their daily routine. We saw some people spent time either in the lounge or in their flats. We saw people had facilities in their flats to make hot drinks, meals, and to watch television.

People told us they felt safe. They said the staff were friendly and helpful. People told us they liked the service.

28 November 2011

During a routine inspection

During our visit people said they were treated with dignity, respect and were involved in choosing the type of care and support they needed and when they required it.

They said they received quality care and support from friendly and competent staff and they felt safe receiving the service.

They did not tell us directly about the support staff received from the agency or the quality assurance system in place. They did tell us that they were in personal contact with the staff and manager daily to identify that they were satisfied with the service and staff delivering it.