Housing 21 - Mere View

Updated 30 May 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 was planned to check 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 announced took place on 18 April 2018 and was carried out by an inspector and an expert by experience. An 'expert-by-experience' is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The provider was given up to 48 hours’ notice because it is a small service and we wanted to be certain the registered manager and staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to make arrangements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out their experience of the service.

Before the inspection, we requested that the provider complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This was received from the provider.

We also reviewed information we held about the service including feedback sent to us from other stakeholders, for example the local authority and members of the public. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about events and incidents that occur including unexpected deaths, injuries to people receiving care and safeguarding matters. We reviewed the notifications the provider had sent us.

We spoke with the registered manager, the assistant manager and the extra care operations manager. We also spoke with two care staff. With their permission we met with eight people and two relatives. After our visit we emailed an additional 13 staff giving them the opportunity to contact us to provide feedback on the service, we did not receive any responses. We also left contact details for any further relatives who may have wished to provide us with feedback but did not receive any responses.

We reviewed the care records of two people to check they were receiving their care as planned. We looked at records relating to the management of the service, staff recruitment and training, and systems for monitoring the quality of the service.

Updated 30 May 2018

Housing and Care 21 Mere View provides care and support to people living in an ‘extra care’ housing scheme and people in living in the wider community. The scheme is referred to as Mere View by people, relatives, staff and the provider. We have also referred to the scheme as Mere View in our report. Extra care housing is purpose built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and service. Not everyone living at Mere View received the regulated activity. On the day of our inspection 17 people were receiving a personal care service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

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 and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were aware of action they should take if abuse was suspected.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment processes were robust and ensured that staff were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. All staff had been subject to a check by the disclosure and baring service (DBS) and had also been required to provide references prior to commencing employment.

Medicines were administered safely to people when they needed this support. Staff were aware of the infection control measures in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

Staff had received the training they required to carry out their roles effectively and new staff had also been supported to undertake a period of induction. This helped ensure that staff had the skills they needed to support people. Staff skills were regularly assessed through spot checks to ensure they knew how to support people in a safe, respectful and effective way.

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. Staff understood the principles of mental capacity.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals when required and the service worked with a number of external agencies to ensure that people received joined up, consistent care.

Staff provided a service which was caring, respectful and promoted people's privacy and dignity.

The provider had a system in place for responding to people's concerns and complaints. People were regularly asked for their views. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below