Background to this inspection
Updated
11 December 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 checked 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.
This service provides care [and support] to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-build 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.
This inspection took place on 7 and 8 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the registered provider 24 hours’ notice as it was an extra care service and we wanted to make sure people would be in.
The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.
We looked at the providers Statement of Purpose. This is a document providing information as to the aims and objectives of the service, the support and services it provides and to who.
We looked at the information held about the provider and the service including statutory notifications and enquiries relating to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us. We also contacted the Local Authority for any information they held on the service. We used this information to help us plan this inspection.
We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
We spoke with four people and two family members.
We spoke with the registered manager, assistant care manager and five members of care staff.
We looked at the care plans and records of three people. We looked at records for three staff, which included their recruitment, induction, on-going monitoring and training. We looked at the minutes of staff meetings and records related to the quality monitoring of the service.
Updated
11 December 2018
This inspection took place on 7 and 8 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the registered provider 24 hours’ notice as it was an extra care service and we wanted to make sure people would be in.
This is the first time the service has been inspected since it was registered on 18 August 2017.
Sunnyside 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 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.
Sunnyside Court has 70, two-bedroom apartments within the extra housing scheme and at the time of the inspection there were 37 people receiving care and support from Housing and Care 21. Not everyone residing at Sunnyside Court receives personal care provided by Housing and Care 21 as some people receive personal care from a different provider.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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.
People who were supported by the service felt safe. Incidents involving people’s medicine had been recorded and action had been taken to reduce the risk for further errors. Staff had a clear understanding on how to safeguard people and protect their health and well-being. Potential risks to people were assessed and people’s views about their care were considered. Potential risks were reduced and people’s decisions of understanding and accepting risk were considered to ensure their independence and choices were respected.
People’s needs were assessed and met by staff who had undergone a robust recruitment process and who had the appropriate skills and knowledge. 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. People’s nutritional needs were met where they required support and staff liaised with a range of health care professionals for the benefit of those using the service.
People using the service and family members spoke of the positive relationships they had developed with staff. People’s dignity and privacy was promoted and people were aware of their right to confidentiality. People’s communication needs were considered when developing care plans, which included information as to how people communicated. This information was used by staff to ensure people could and were encouraged to express their views.
People’s care plans were developed and regularly reviewed with the person to ensure they included information as to how they wished their care to be delivered, to maintain their independence. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People and relatives knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns and felt comfortable in doing so. Some people confirmed they had no complaints about the care they received and they were happy with everything. Other people told us they had complained previously and a majority of people said that the registered manager dealt with and resolved their complaints satisfactorily.
The provider’s managerial structure meant there was strong, clear and visible leadership. There were robust systems to measure the quality of the service, both from senior management of Housing and Care 21 and internally, with audits being carried out by the registered manager and the management team.
The provider had attained external accreditation by being awarded the Gold Standard Investors in People Award. People within the local authority who commissioned the care of behalf of people, were positive about the working relationship they had with the registered manager.