We carried out a review of the data available to us about Housing 21 - Mattesley 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 - Mattesley Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Housing 21 – Mattesley Court is an Extra Care Housing provision and domiciliary care service providing personal care for people aged 55 years and over. 26 people were supported at the time of the inspection.
People using the service lived in their own flats within one adapted building. 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.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt the service was safe. Staff knew how to identify and respond to suspicions of abuse. People had also been involved in safeguarding awareness and training sessions. The registered manager had investigated and promoted learning from previous events and had notified CQC of specific events as required.
People’s risks were known to and managed by staff, although records were not always available to ensure consistent practice. People who received support with medicines told us this support was safe, although records were not all accurately maintained. People told us they received their calls on time and the inspection found continued safe recruitment practices.
We received consistently positive feedback from the support people received, and healthcare professionals spoke positively about the service. People were supported to access healthcare services and to prepare and have their meals if needed. Staff told us they had enough training and felt supported. Further training plans were underway to help continue to develop staff.
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. We found however improvements were required as to how one person was supported. Our last inspection had found staff were not always clear on the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). We have made a recommendation about this.
People and relatives all told us staff were caring. People told us they were asked for their views about their care although this was not always documented. People’s privacy, independence and dignity was promoted.
People’s individual preferences and routines were known and followed. People’s needs were responded to including end of life care and any concerns people raised. People were encouraged to get involved in social events at the service.
Records were not always robust to reflect the positive support described by people and staff including medicines management. Audits had not always identified and addressed all issues to support continuous improvements to the quality and safety of the service.
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 (August 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
We have found evidence of continued good practice however the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the Well-Led section of this full report. The provider continues to take action to improve in these areas and we found no evidence of harm during this inspection from the concerns identified.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Housing 21 – Mattesley Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
Mattesley Court is an extra care housing scheme that provides accommodation and care. The service is registered with CQC to provide personal care to people living at the scheme. At the time of the inspection there were 36 people using the service for support with personal care. There was a registered manager in post, however, they were completing an internal secondment to another role at the time of the inspection. Alternative management arrangements were in place on a day to day basis while the registered manager was absent and CQC had been notified of these arrangements. 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 not always protected by effective medicines management systems. People were however, protected by a staff and management team who knew how to recognise and report potential signs of abuse. Staff understood the potential risks to people’s safety and knew how to reduce the risk of harm to people. People were supported by sufficient numbers of care staff who had been recruited safely for their roles.
People were enabled to consent to their care and support. People were cared for by staff who had the skills to support them effectively. People were supported to meet their nutritional and day to day health needs.
People were supported by a staff team who were caring in their approach and understood their needs. People were enabled to make day to day choices about their care. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were promoted and they were treated with respect. People were supported to maintain important relationships with friends and relatives.
People and their representatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care. The care people received met their needs and preferences. People were supported to take part in leisure opportunities. People told us they knew how to complain and felt confident their concerns would be addressed by management.
People told us the service was well-led and they felt supported by the staff and management team. People were supported by a committed, motivated staff team. Quality assurance checks were completed across the service to identify areas for improvement and further develop the service provided to people.
In this report the name of the registered manager, Mr Brian Taylor appears, who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still identified as the registered manager on our register at the time.
There were shared communal areas including a restaurant, library, shop, hairdressers and seated areas. The property was owned and managed by Housing and Care 21 and people had an individual tenancy agreement. The building and accommodation were not regulated by the Care Quality Commission; our inspection focused on how people’s personal care was provided.
We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;
Is the service safe?
People using the service were encouraged to retain their independence and decide how to spend their time. People agreed with the level of support they needed and how they wanted to be assisted. Where people’s needs changed, the provider responded and reviewed the care provided to ensure people were safe. This meant the people received care to meet their needs.
People using the service received support when necessary to take their medicines as prescribed. Weekly audits were completed so staff could easily identify that medicines had been dispensed as required. They could also identify stock inconsistencies and any administration errors. Medication sheets did not record all medicines administered in detail to ensure that people received their medicines in a safe and consistent way.
People using the service had capacity to make decisions about their support and care. The staff had received training for The Mental Capacity Act 2005 which sets out how to act when people no longer have capacity. This meant that staff could ensure that where people no longer had capacity, appropriate decisions would be made in their best interests
Is the service effective?
People using the service had care records which reflected the care and support they wanted to receive. People could choose when to receive support and how they wanted staff to help to them to enable them to continue to live in their own home.
People continued to have responsibility for contacting and arranging appropriate health care to keep well. Where people had healthcare appointments or personal commitments people could request the time of the support provided was changed.
The care records reflected any changes in health which meant staff could continue to provide effective care.
Is the service caring?
The staff were respectful and knowledgeable about people’s care and people confirmed that it was carried out in the way they had requested. They had confidence that the staff had the skills necessary to meet their needs and were caring and compassionate. Staff received specific training to meet the needs of people using the service which meant people received safe care.
People kept a copy of their care records in their home and could decide who they wanted to view them. People told us the staff knew how to keep information confidential and were respectful with comments which were written about the support they received.
Is the service responsive?
People were happy with the care and support they received. People had information about what they could expect from the service and were central to the development of their support plan. People met with staff to review their plan and could decide whether the agreed care still met their needs. This meant people received the support they wanted.
Activities were organised to ensure people had opportunities not to be socially isolated but respected people’s decision about whether they chose to be involved.
People had opportunities to raise any concern or complaint and were confident that these were dealt with promptly and effectively.
Is the service well-led?
Systems were in place to ensure the service was monitored and the provider sought to make improvements where needed. People using the service were consulted about the management of the service and could influence the service delivery. There were systems in place to ensure staff knew about any changes and developments. This meant the provider was able to respond to any changes promptly.
The service had a registered manager in post and there were clear management structures offering support and leadership. This meant the home had a positive, empowering culture. Records showed that CQC had been notified, as required by law, of all the incidents in the service that could affect the health, safety and welfare of people.
In this report the name of a registered manager appears. They were not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this service at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time. A new manager was in post, they were in the process of submitting their registered manager's application to CQC.
The care staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the care requirements of the people living at the court. However, the lack of regular assessments and reviews meant this information was not always reflected in the care plans and risk assessments.
Not all staff had received regular supervisions or updates to their mandatory training. This had been identified by Housing 21 during an audit. An action plan was in place to address the gaps in training requirements.
There was a complaints process in place; people living at the court told us they were aware of the complaints procedure. People were confident their complaints would be managed appropriately.
Mattesley Court was an Extra Care Housing provision for people aged 55 years and over who had care needs. Accommodation comprised of 59 flats including two respite flats. Staff were available 24 hours a day. In house facilities consisted of a restaurant, hairdressing salon and a well being suite, there were also plans to reopen a shop which had recently closed down. As an extra care housing provision Mattesley Court was not required to be registered with CQC for the accommodation, this was because people were living in their own homes. They were however registered to deliver personal care to people, this is the area we looked at during the inspection.
During our visit we spoke with seven people who lived at the court, six staff members, the care coordinator and the manager. Through a process called 'pathway tracking' we looked at three care plans, spoke with people about the care they received and asked staff about how they provided support. This helped us establish whether people were getting appropriate care that met their needs and supported their rights.
In the communal areas there were a number of people who lived at the court sitting watching TV, chatting together, or sitting quietly with a cup of tea. During the inspection we observed a person looking around the court with their family with a view to moving in. Staff and other people living at the court greeted them warmly, inviting them to stay for a drink. We observed some good interactions from staff with people living at the court.
We viewed training records and spoke to staff about training that was available to them. The staff we spoke with told us that training was available and they were supported by the management regarding their learning and development needs.
During the inspection we looked at the process the service had in place to monitor the quality of the service provided . We found systems were in place for auditing documentation within the service.