Archived: Housing & Care 21 - Handyside Court

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Support plans reflected people's needs and staff understood how to support people individual needs in line with their support plans. Care plans were written in an individual way ensuring people received personalised care from staff. There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies such as individual evacuation plans in case of a serious event such as a fire. There are issues related to the contract split in the service, in that Housing 21 deliver planned care and another agency deliver unplanned care. There is potential that people's needs may not be met where they have missed their planned time slot and information is not passed between the two agencies. The new manager has put systems in place to reduce this risk.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed, and they and their representatives were involved in the agreement of their plans of care. We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by staff. We found that there were issues of lack of communication between Housing 21 and the agency that provided unplanned care, however the new manager had put systems in place to minimise the risk of this impacting on people's safety.

Is the service caring?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care appropriate to their needs. We saw where people were supported by visiting doctors, specialists and district nurses on a regular basis. There were issues around how Housing 21 worked with the agency that provided unplanned care and this should be more effectively monitored by systems put in place by the new manager.

Is the service responsive?

People had their needs assessed before moving to the service. We also saw that they were reviewed regularly and where people's needs changed they were reviewed more frequently.

Is the service well-led?

Quality assurance systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. Staff spoken with understood the standard of care expected of them by the provider. The new manager had introduced systems to ensure that identified concerns were addressed promptly.

We found that people's care records were completed to a consistent standard to ensure they received appropriate care and treatment. People's records included essential information and detailed the care and treatment they required to meet their needs, including measures in place to minimise risks and keep them safe.

People found the service to be reliable as they received the help they needed at their preferred times. People told us they were happy with the care they received, and that they had agreed to their care and treatment. People were asked for their views about their care and the service and they were acted on.

People said they liked the staff that supported them and that they usually received consistent care from regular staff who knew their needs. Comments received included ''the staff go that extra mile and provide care and support beyond what is expected of them, the service is flexible and the staff are caring and helpful, and I can't fault the staff; they are considerate and nothing is too much trouble.'

People who use the service felt safe and were protected from the risk of abuse. Although we found that people's care records did not include all essential information, to protect individuals against the risks of inappropriate care and treatment.

The staffing cover was reduced, although sufficient numbers of staff were maintained whilst further staff were being recruited.

People felt that the service was generally well run. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of services provided, and to identify and manage risks to people who use the service and others.