Octavia Housing - Burgess Field

Burgess Field is an extra care sheltered housing scheme comprising of 28 studio and one-bedroom flats. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. Tenancy agreements are managed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea local authority. The care quality commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for extra care housing.

CQC only inspects the service being received by people being supported with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. People receive care and support from 24-hour on-site staff. At the time of the inspection, the service was providing personal care to 18 people. A small number of care and support packages are provided privately and by other external domiciliary care agencies.

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

People using the service were happy with the support they received, and the service was providing a good standard of care.

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service. Care and support plans recorded people's support needs and provided a brief personal history, past and present.

Risk assessments and guidance were in place. Staff were aware of how risks to people’s health and well-being could be minimised.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible abuse and staff completed and updated safeguarding training as and when needed.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of consent and capacity issues in relation to current mental health legislation.

Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to complete daily tasks and take part in social and leisure activities where appropriate. Staff respected people's privacy when supporting them with personal care.

The service worked in partnership with others. People were supported to access healthcare services when required such as GP's and hospital departments. Staff knew how to respond to medical emergencies.

People were supported with meal preparation where this formed part of an agreed package of care.

Staff received supervision and support and had completed an induction period that included shadowing more experienced members of staff before working with people on their own.

The registered manager operated an open-door policy and people felt comfortable speaking with staff about any concerns or complaints they may have. People were encouraged to feedback about the service via tenant’s meetings and an annual survey.

The provider completed quality audits and spot checks. Medicines records were audited on a regular basis. The registered manager and his team assured us that all care documentation would be fully audited and updated where required to ensure people continued to receive appropriate care and support.

Rating at last inspection

We rated this service requires improvement overall at our previous inspection in January 2019.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the previous inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about this service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

At the time of the inspection, the service was providing personal care to 17 people. CQC only inspects the service being received by people being supported with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

What life is like for people using this service:

People using the service were happy with the support they received and felt the service provided a good standard of care. However, people were not always receiving the appropriate support to take their prescribed medicines safely.

People's needs were assessed before they started using the service. Care and support plans recorded people's needs and preferences.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of consent and capacity issues in relation to mental health legislation.

People's privacy was respected. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to complete tasks and participate in the activities they enjoyed.

Risk assessments and guidance were in place. Staff were aware of how risks to people’s health and well-being could be minimised.

The provider had a safeguarding policy in place which was accessible to staff. Systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible abuse.

People were supported to eat and drink where this formed part of an agreed package of care.

The service worked in partnership with others. People were supported to access healthcare services when required such as GP's and hospital departments.

Staff received supervision and support and had completed an induction period that included shadowing more experienced members of staff before working with people on their own.

People were encouraged to feedback about the service and staff acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.

The provider completed quality audits and spot checks. However, checks carried out to ensure medicines were managed safely were not always effective at remedying the shortfalls we identified during this inspection.

We identified a breach of the regulation relating to safe care and treatment. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Rating at last inspection: We rated this service good overall at our previous inspection in June 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the previous inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about this service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The registered manager was on leave at the time of our visit. Following the inspection he contacted us by phone to discuss aspects of the service.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the service. Initial assessments were used to design a package of care for people ensuring their needs could be met by staff at the service. We were unable to locate assessments in the all of the care records we looked at during our visit because older records had been archived off site. Where we were able to ascertain that people's needs had been assessed, care and support plans took account of people's individual needs, preferences, and choices.

Risk assessments were in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised. The provider had an up to date safeguarding policy which was accessible to staff and systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm. Most staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of the provider’s whistleblowing policy.

We were unable to review the provider’s staff recruitment records as these were held off site. We asked the registered manager to confirm that staff had been recruited safely, completed the necessary Disclosure and Barring Service checks, provided proof of identity and had the right to work in the UK. We received confirmation from the provider that all necessary checks had been completed and staff were safe to work with people using the service.

People were supported by caring and respectful staff and were supported to access other healthcare services when required such as GP's and district nursing services.

Staff had received training in mental health legislation and demonstrated an understanding of consent and capacity issues in relation to this legislation. Where possible, care plans had been signed by people using the service.

Staff received formal supervision and support and had completed an induction period that included shadowing more experienced members of staff before working with people on their own.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.

There were a range of quality monitoring processes in place to ensure care practices and service delivery were continually monitored and improvements made where indicated.