Housing 21 - Fountain Court

Updated 27 February 2019

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 inspection took place on 22 January 2019 and 24 January 2019 and was announced.

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to be sure someone would be available at the office.

The inspection 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 for older people.

Before the inspection we reviewed information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We also contacted commissioners from the Local Authorities who contracted people’s care to obtain feedback about the service.

We carried out a site visit on the first day of inspection and on day two of the inspection the expert-by-experience carried out telephone interviews with people who use the service and relatives.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people who lived at the service, five support workers, the assistant manager, the housing manager, the registered manager and a visiting professional. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and checked to see how the service was managed. We looked at care plans for three people, the recruitment records for three staff, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service and the quality assurance audits that were completed. During the inspection we carried out general observations. After the site visit the expert-by-experience telephoned five people who used the service.

Updated 27 February 2019

This was an announced inspection which took place on 22 and 24 January 2019. We gave the provider 24 hours' notice to ensure someone would be available at the office.

Housing and Care 21-Fountain Court provides personal care and support to people living in 'extra care' housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant's own home. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission does not regulate premises used for extra care housing, this inspection looked at people's personal care and support service. The complex comprises 42 apartments. They are for single person or double occupancy.

Not everyone living at Fountain Court receives the regulated activity. At the time of the inspection there were 39 people in receipt of a service.

At our last inspection in August 2016 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 ongoing 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.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People and relatives told us the service kept them safe. They trusted the workers who supported them. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse. People's medicines were managed safely. The provider and registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough staff were deployed to support people safely. The provider's recruitment process minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

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 had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people's care needs.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Care plans were in place that provided some detail of how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff had developed good relationships with people, were caring in their approach and treated people with respect. Care was provided with patience and kindness. Staff upheld people's human rights and treated everyone with respect and dignity.

Staff were aware of people's nutritional needs and made sure they were supported with eating and drinking where necessary. People's health needs were identified and staff worked with other health care professionals to ensure these were addressed.

People were provided with some opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies. They were supported to be part of the local community.

People, their relatives and staff said the management team were supportive and approachable. Communication was effective, ensuring people, their relatives and other relevant agencies were kept up-to-date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.