Bishopstoke Park

Updated 8 October 2022

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

This service 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. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Registered Manager

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used information gathered as part of monitoring activity that took place on 28 April 2022 to help plan the inspection and inform our judgements. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

During the inspection we spoke with five people who used the service and two relatives, the manager, team leader, two care workers, and two members of the senior management team. We looked at a range of records including care plans for four people, recruitment files for four staff, training records, risk assessments and medicines records. We also looked at information regarding the arrangements for monitoring the quality and safety of the service. Following the inspection visit we spoke with two other care workers and a relative of a person who used the service.

Updated 8 October 2022

About the service

Bishopstoke Park is a retirement village consisting of privately owned apartments and a registered residential care home. The retirement village includes a wellness centre and spa, restaurant, café, a general store and a library. The provider (Anchor Hanover Group) is registered with CQC to provide a personal care service to people living in their own apartments in the retirement village. The residential care service is registered separately with CQC. This inspection relates only to the personal care service provided for people in the retirement village.

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.

At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 18 older people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Based on our review of safe and well-led, we received some mixed feedback about the service from people, their relatives and staff. Some concerns were expressed about the level of staffing, particularly during the evenings. We have made a recommendation about staffing.

Robust systems and governance had not been in place. For example, there had been a lack of formal review processes and audits, and some staff training needed updating. The new manager had started to identify and address shortfalls in quality monitoring. Comments from staff and people’s relatives acknowledged that the new manager “Had a difficult task and was doing her best” and, "Understands risk and she really cares.”

Some staff felt that communication between the management team and staff could be improved. They told us they did not always feel they were getting clarity and support from the management team. The new manager was working to an action plan, identifying areas for improvement. However, action was still needed to ensure all areas were addressed and any changes were well understood and embedded by all staff.

Staff were not always clear about what the provider’s policy was regarding people’s medicines. We have made a recommendation about medicines management.

Staff had received training in the safe handling of medicines, and this was followed by an assessment of their competency to administer medicines. Safe recruitment practices were followed before new staff were employed to work with people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of infection control procedures and had received training in infection control. Assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to people and to the care workers who supported them. Staff were aware of people’s risk assessments and contributed to monitoring for any changes to these.

People and their relatives gave positive feedback about the care provided by staff. For example, they told us staff were always willing to discuss their support needs and were flexible in their approach. “They are incredibly accommodating. The staff are so dedicated.”

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 (published on 15 February 2020). At this inspection we found improvements were needed and so the rating has changed to requires improvement.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.