We carried out a review of the data available to us about Housing 21 - Oak House 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 - Oak House, you can give feedback on this service.
The service went above and beyond to ensure people were supported to live their lives as fully and independently as possible. It was clear staff made a positive impact on people's lives and the culture of the staff team and management was exceptionally caring. People who use the service, their relatives and healthcare professionals all agreed the service provided to people was exceptional.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to meet the needs of people living at Housing 21 – Oak House. Whilst people had a set schedule of when carers would visit to support them, they benefitted from being able to call for staff assistance if they needed it amytime over 24 hours. People said staff were responsive to their needs even where this was outside of their scheduled care hours.
People told us the staff were kind and caring. There was an evident culture of kindness in the service which was promoted by the senior leadership team, the management team and care staff who went over and above to enhance people’s lives.
The management team and care staff recognised the importance of protecting people they cared for from the risks of social isolation and boredom, even where providing social support wasn’t part of their agreed care plan. Staff went over and beyond to ensure people remained engaged and were not lonely, giving up their own time to visit people which made them feel valued.
People who required support to maintain good nutrition and hydration told us they received the support they needed.
Information about people’s preferences in coming to the end of their life were documented. The service worked well with other agencies to ensure people had a comfortable, pain free death and could remain in their own home as per their wishes.
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 told us staff were respectful, asked for their consent and gave them the privacy they wished for.
People were supported and enabled to be independent. The service had provided support to people in a way which meant that they were eventually able to reduce the amount of support staff needed to provide so they could live a more independent life.
Where required, people were supported to make appointments with other healthcare professionals and attend appointments. Staff went over and beyond to accompany people to appointments when relatives were unable to do so. This reduced anxiety for some people.
People were actively involved in the planning of their care and the way they wanted this delivered. People had access to several methods of giving feedback on the service they received. People’s feedback was acted on.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was 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.
There were systems in place which provided guidance for care workers on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised.
Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.
Care workers were available to ensure that planned visits to people were completed. People were supported by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs. Care workers had good relationships with people who used the service.
People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.
Where people required assistance with their dietary needs there were systems in place to provide this support safely. Where required, people were provided with support to access health care professionals.
A complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.
Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service. There was good leadership in the service. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were addressed appropriately. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.
This inspection took place on the 4 February 2015 and was unannounced.
Oak House is a housing with care scheme which provides housing with personal care support including meal preparation and medication administration for older people. Domiciliary care packages are allocated according to people’s assessed needs with care provided from a designated team of carers based within the housing scheme for people living within 38 flats. People had their own tenancy agreement for the accommodation they occupied.
There is a registered manager in place. 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 were safe and protected from the risk of harm as staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff had the required knowledge and knew what action to take to protect people from harm and what action to take if they had concerns.
The system in place to guide staff in the handling of medication errors and determining roles and responsibilities, the handling of medication errors and the current system in place for the ordering and obtaining of people’s medicines was not clear.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. The manager followed safe recruitment practices.
Staff were provided with regular supervision and appraisals. This meant that they had been provided with opportunities to meet with their manager to discuss their work performance and plan their training and development needs.
People were satisfied with the care provided. Everyone we spoke with expressed their satisfaction with the provider. People told us they were treated with kindness and compassion. They also told us their dignity had been respected when staff supported them with personal care.
The care needs of people had been assessed prior to their moving into the service. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were clearly identified and actions in place to minimise these.
People were knowledgeable of the provider’s system for receiving and responding to complaints. All complaints received had been responded to within timescales which was in accordance with the provider’s policy.
Staff were supported by the manager who they described an open, friendly, caring culture where they were able to raise any issues or concerns that they had.
The monitoring of the quality and safety of the service was integral to the provider’s approach and they were aware of the potential risks. The provider’s quality assurance system ensured planning for continuous improvement of the service.
Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The eight people who we spoke with all confirmed that they were pleased with the care and support that they received. We noted, however, that no contingency plans were in place for coping with failures in the electricity supply. This had been raised as a concern to us prior to our visit. Carers told us that they had been able to cope when the power failed due to a recent storm, but expressed concerns about the risks of the complex being without light or heating especially as call bells and landline telephones did not work and mobile telephone signals were poor. The manager assured us that action was being taken to address these concerns.
People were cared for, and supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. There were effective recruitment and selection processes with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff took up their appointments.
People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained. Records relating to people using the service and to staff were securely, but accessibly, stored. Records relating to the safe and effective management of the service were up to date.
People told us that they were consulted about the care that they were provided with and felt that their needs were met. One person said, 'I could not be in a better place.'
People told us that they knew how to make a complaint about the service they were provided with. However they had not felt that they needed to. They told us that the care staff listened and acted on what they said and if they had concerns they were addressed promptly. One person said, 'I am happy with everything.' Another person said, 'If I am unhappy I soon tell them.'
All four people we spoke with told us they were involved in developing their care and treatment and that their care plans reflected their choices and preferences. They told us the agency regularly contacted them for feedback and to check if their care was satisfactory.
Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe and secure with their care workers and their privacy and dignity was respected.