Background to this inspection
Updated
20 August 2015
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 was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection was carried out on 16 July 2015 by one Inspector and was unannounced. Before the inspection, the provider to completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that requires them 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 including statutory notifications. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us.
During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, two relatives, two staff members, the manager and deputy manager. We also received feedback from health care professionals, stakeholders and reviewed the commissioner’s report of their most recent inspection. We looked at care plans relating to two people who used the service and one staff file.
Updated
20 August 2015
The inspection took place on 16 July 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 04 September 2013, the service was found to be meeting the required standards. Great Ganett is a supported living service for up to three young adults who live with autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection two people were using the service.
There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The CQC is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection we found that no DoLS authorities had been required or obtained because it had not been necessary to restrict anybody’s liberty in accordance with the MCA 2005.
People told us they felt safe and secure. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people against the risks of abuse and knew how to report concerns both internally and externally. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed. Flexible arrangements were in place to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available at all times to meet people’s individual needs.
Plans and guidance had been put in place to help staff deal with unforeseen events and emergencies. The environment and equipment used were regularly checked and well maintained to keep people safe. People were supported to take their medicines by trained staff. Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were identified, reviewed and managed effectively.
People were positive about the skills, experience and abilities of the staff who supported them. Staff received training and refresher updates relevant to their roles and had regular supervision meetings to discuss and review their development and performance.
People told us they were supported to maintain good health and they had access to health and social care professionals when necessary. They were provided with appropriate levels of support to help them plan a healthy balanced diet that met their individual needs.
Staff obtained people’s consent and permission before providing support which they did in a kind and compassionate way. Information about local advocacy services had been made available for people who wished to obtain independent advice or guidance.
Staff developed positive and caring relationships with the people they supported. People and their relatives were fully involved in the planning, delivery and reviews of the support provided. The confidentiality of information held about people’s medical and personal histories had been securely maintained.
Support was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. People told us they received personalised support that met their needs and took account of their preferences. Staff had taken time to get to know the people they supported and were knowledgeable about their background histories, preferences, routines, goals and personal circumstances.
Opportunities were available for people to pursue social interests and take part in meaningful activities relevant to their needs, both at the service and in the wider community. People and their relatives told us that staff listened to them and responded to any concerns they had in a positive way. Complaints were recorded properly and investigated promptly.
People, their relatives, staff and professional stakeholders very were complimentary about the managers and how the service operated. Measures were in place to monitor the quality of services provided, reduce potential risks and drive improvement.