You are here

MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

This inspection took place on 9 December 2015 and was announced.

MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning is registered to provide personal care and support for people with a learning disability and autism. At the time of our inspection there were three people using the service who resided within their own home. People’s packages of care varied with some people receiving support over a period of 24 hours, whilst others received support for differing number of hours on different days.

People who used the service were unable to consent to our visiting and meeting with them to talk about the service. We were advised that our visiting some people within their own home may cause the people potential stress and anxiety, as people were not comfortable in the presence of people they did not know. We therefore spoke with people’s relatives.

MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning had a registered manager in post. 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.

People’s relatives told us they felt people’s safety was promoted and recognised by the support workers. Staff were trained in safeguarding (protecting people who use care services from abuse) and knew what to do if they were concerned about the welfare of any of the people who used the service. Where people were at risk, staff had the information they needed to help keep them safe.

People were supported by knowledgeable staff that had a good understanding as to people’s needs. Staff provided tailored and individual support to keep people safe and to provide support when their behaviour became challenging. People were supported to take ‘positive risks’ to promote their independence in leading a lifestyle of their choosing.

People were supported to manage their medicine with the support of staff where required. People in some instances were able to indicate the need to take medicine to help keep them calm down. People’s capacity to make informed decisions about taking some medicines had been assessed and best interest decisions had been made. This was to ensure people’s needs were met when they themselves were not able to promote their own safety and welfare by making an informed decision.

People using the service had a dedicated team of staff that provided support to them within their own home and the wider community. People’s views as to staff along with those of their relative were considered to ensure the staff that supported people had the appropriate skills and were able to develop a positive and trusting working relationship.

People received an effective service as people’s support plans provided clear guidance about their needs which were monitored and reviewed by the management team and senior support worker through the supervision and appraisal of staff and meetings. Systems were in place to ensure they effectively communicated with each other to provide a continuous and consistent service to people.

People were provided and supported in line with legislation and guidance. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. We found that capacity assessments had been carried out on aspects of people’s care and support. Where these assessments had identified that people did not have the capacity to make an informed decisions, then their relatives and others involved in their care had met and agreed a plan of action, referred to as a best interest meeting. The outcome of these meetings had been recorded and used to develop support plans which were regularly reviewed to ensure any decisions made on behalf of people remained in their best interest.

People were supported to with daily living tasks such as grocery shopping, meal preparation and cooking as part of their support packages. Staff encouraged people to eat a healthy diet and where necessary supported people in the eating of their meals. People’s dietary requirements to support them along with their likes and dislikes with regards to food and drink were recorded within their records.

Records showed staff where support was required liaised with people’s health care professionals to ensure that access the appropriate medical care and support.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and had developed positive and trusting relationships that been established between the people receiving a service, their relatives and staff. Staff told us that part of their role was to support people to access the wider community and to encourage social interaction and independence. Staff through discussion spoke of how they supported people’s privacy and dignity within the wider community, through the support they provided with people’s involvement and the promotion of their independence.

People were encouraged to influence the support they received through their own comments and that of their relatives. Meetings were held to ensure all interested parties, which included relatives, staff and external professionals regularly met to review the package of support people received to ensure it continued to meet their individual needs.

People’s support plans were tailored and individualised to meet their needs and reflected all aspects of their lives, including information and guidance as to the support they required within their own home and the wider community. People’s preference as to their hobbies, interests, goals and aspirations were also reflected.

Support plans were comprehensive which focused on the views of the person and how they wanted their support to be provided. There was an emphasis on the need for good communication to ensure people’s views were clearly understood.

People’s relatives were confident to raise concerns and told us that the regular contact they had with staff meant any issues could be discussed and ideas shared for the benefit of those using the service.

Staff spoke positively of the registered and front line manager (who had recently been appointed to manage the day to day running of the service) in the support they provided to them and that any issues were effectively managed to ensure people received a good service. Staff said there were effective systems which enabled them to communicate well with their colleagues to ensure that people received the support they needed.

The registered manager and front line manager had a comprehensive understanding as to the needs of people and were able to detail how staff provided support.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system which assessed the quality of the service. Information gathered as part of the quality audits was used to continually develop the service and look for ways in which people using the service could achieve greater autonomy.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse because staff had an understanding of what abuse was and their responsibilities to act on concerns.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed and measures were in place to ensure staff supported people safely, whilst promoting people’s choices and independence.

People received support from a dedicated team of staff. The level of support provided was reflective of the person’s assessment of need.

People were supported by staff to manage their medicines where required.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that had the appropriate knowledge and skills to provider care and who understood the needs of people.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s support plans and records showed the principles of the Act were used when assessing people’s ability to make informed decisions about their care and support people’s rights.

People were supported to manage their dietary needs with regards to their food and drink, which included support with eating, and the shopping, preparation and cooking of meals.

People where appropriate were supported by staff to maintain good health and to access and liaise with health care professionals.

Staff understood people’s health care needs and referred them to health care professionals when necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was caring.

People who used the service with the support of their relatives had developed positive and inclusive professional relationships by ensuring all people involved in people’s lives were regularly consulted about the service being provided.

People’s support plans detailed how people communicated their views about the service and the role of staff in promoting people’s involvement in the service they received.

People’s privacy and dignity was promoted by staff who promoted people’s access to the wider community and their independence in accessing services.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was responsive.

People received a personalised and tailored service which met people’s needs and enabled them to maximise their independence. People’s views were sought to ensure the support they received was continually assessed to reflect any changes to people’s needs.

People using the service and their relatives were confident to comment on the service provided and were positive that any issues were addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was well-led.

The registered manager and staff had a clear view as to the service they wished to provide which focused on promoting people’s rights and choices that was both inclusive and empowering to those who used the service and their relatives.

Staff were complimentary about the support they received from the management team and were encouraged to share their views about the service’s development.

The provider undertook audits to check the quality and safety of the service, which included seeking the views of external stakeholders.