Housing 21 - Springhill Court

Updated 10 January 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 inspection took place on 3 November 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service providing support to people in their own homes. We needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office. A second day of inspection took place on 15 November 2017 which was also announced.

The inspection was carried out by an inspector. An expert by experience made calls to people who used the service on 3 November 2017 to gain their views. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. The area of their expertise was in older people.

As part of planning our inspection, we contacted the local Healthwatch and local authority safeguarding and quality performance teams to obtain their views about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer group, which gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to tell us about within required timescales.

The provider had been asked to complete a provider information return (PIR). A PIR 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. The provider had submitted the PIR within the required timescales.

During the inspection, we reviewed a range of records. These included three people's care records containing care planning documentation and daily records. We looked at three staff files relating to their recruitment, supervision, appraisal and training. We viewed records relating to the management of the service and a wide variety of policies and procedures.

During the inspection, we spoke with five members of staff including the area and deputy managers. We also spoke with two relatives and eight people who used the service. We also visited two people in their own homes.

Updated 10 January 2018

The inspection took place on 3 November 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care services and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office. Telephone calls to people who used the service also took place on 3 November 2017. A second day of inspection took place on 15 November which was also announced.

Housing & Care 21 – Springhill Court is based in Easingwold near York. Some people who received support live in apartments located on the site in Easingwold. Housing & Care 21 are also the housing association that is responsible for the accommodation. This is called extra-care. Other people live out in the community in their own homes and Housing & Care 21 staff go out and visit them to support with personal care. At the time of this inspection, the service was providing support to 18 people at the extra care location and 13 people in the community.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

There was a manager in post who had registered with CQC. At the time of this inspection, they were unavailable. The area manager and deputy manager assisted throughout the inspection.

People were protected from the risk of harm. Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and risk assessments had been developed when needed to reduce the risk of harm occurring. Medicines were managed safely. Staff had their competencies in this area assessed. Safe recruitment procedures had been followed. There was enough staff on duty to support people safely. Staff had access to personal protective equipment and staff promoted good infection control practices.

New staff completed a thorough induction when they joined the service. Training records for all staff were up to date and staff were given the opportunity to attend specialist training to improve their knowledge and skills. Staff were supported by management though a regular system of supervisions to monitor their performance. Where needed, people were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People told us they had access to their own, preferred GP. People were empowered to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People spoke positively about the caring nature of staff and the support they received. People were treated with dignity and their choices were respected by staff.

Care records were person-centred and contained all relevant information to enable staff to provide personalised care and support. People were aware of their care plans and their content and signed documentation evidenced that consent was sought. A comprehensive complaint procedure was in place which had been followed.

People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the management team. Satisfaction surveys had been distributed to gain the views of people who used the service. Action had been taken where required. Quality assurance processes were in place and conducted on a regular basis to enable the service to continuously improve.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.