We carried out a review of the data available to us about Special People on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Special People, you can give feedback on this service.
At the last inspection on 14 January 2016 the provider met all of the legal requirements we looked at and was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
At the time of our inspection the provider also acted in the role of the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
From the contact we had with relatives of children using the service and a social care professional we found that there was usually a good and even very high degree of satisfaction with the way the service worked with people. There was confidence in how the agency worked and felt that staff communicated well and were knowledgeable and skilled.
People who used the service, mostly children, but some adults, had a variety of complex support needs and from the twelve care plans that we looked at we found that the information and guidance provided to staff was clear. Any risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed, and the action needed to mitigate against risks was recorded and reviewed regularly.
Care plans were well written, easily accessible and described each person’s individual care and support needs. Preferred methods for communicating and how each person liked to be cared for were described with the appropriate guidance for staff about how to do this was in place.
We looked at the training records of the 29 staff that provided personal care. We saw that in all cases, core training had been undertaken and the type of specialised training they required was tailored to the needs of the people they were supporting. We found that staff appraisals were happening annually.
Care staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and worked in ways that demonstrated this. Staff worked well to ensure people’s preferences were respected, whether they be children or adults.
The provider continued to monitor the quality and performance of the service, seek people’s views and respond to those views, which was evident in the experience of the service that relatives shared with us.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 14 January 2016. At the last inspection on 22 and 29 January 2015 the provider was not meeting all of the requirements we looked at. We had found the service was in breach of 17 (formally regulation 10) in that there was no system in place to ensure that people’s views of the service were being sought. We found at this inspection the service had developed a system to seek people’s views and we were shown the outcome from feedback the service had received.
At the time of our inspection the provider also acted in the role of the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
From the contact we had with two relatives of children using the service and health and social care professionals we found that there was usually a good and mostly very high degree of satisfaction with the way the service worked with their children and families. They were confident about staff at the agency and felt able to discuss anything they wished to and staff were thought to be knowledgeable and skilled.
Although overwhelmingly the service cared for children and young people under the age of 18 a small number of young adults were also catered for. The provider had, since we recommended this at our previous inspection, ensured that policies, procedures and information in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. This was to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. It should be noted that the agency would not have responsibility for making applications under either of these pieces of legislation; however, they would have responsibility for ensuring that any decision on DoLS and MCA 2005 were complied with.
People who used the service, mostly children and young adults, had a variety of complex support needs and from the twelve care plans that we looked at we found that the information and guidance provided to staff was clear. Any risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed, and the action needed to mitigate against risks was recorded. We found that risk assessments were updated regularly and this included those risks associated with complex care needs.
During our review of care plans we found that these were tailored to people’s unique and individual needs. Communication, methods of providing care and support with the appropriate guidance for each person’s needs were in place and regularly reviewed.
We looked at the training records of the 29 staff that provided personal care. We saw that in all cases, core training had been undertaken and the type of specialised training they required was tailored to the needs of the people they were supporting. We found that staff appraisals were happening annually
We found that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and worked in ways that demonstrated this. From the feedback we had from people and records we looked at we found that people’s preferences had been recorded. Staff worked well to ensure these preferences were respected, whether they be children or adults.
This inspection was short notice which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming until shortly before we visited the service. This inspection took place on the 15 & 29 January 2015. At the last inspection on 11th November 2013 the provider met all of the requirements we looked at.
At the time of our inspection the provider also acted in the role of the registered manager. The service provided care and support to predominantly children and young adults with a range of physical and / or learning disabilities across the London area.
From the telephone discussions we had with the relatives of children using the service we found that they were highly satisfied with the way the service worked with their children and they themselves as parents. They were confident about staff at the agency and felt able to discuss anything they wished to and staff were thought to be knowledgeable and skilled. Relatives felt that there was honesty in the way the service communicated with them. However, we found that the registered person had not provided sufficient support for staff by arranging suitable opportunities for staff supervision and appraisal.
Although overwhelmingly the service cared for children and young people under the age of 18 a small number of young adults were also catered for. The provider had not ensured that policies, procedures and information in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were in place to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. The provider informed us that no one using the service would currently be subject to the MCA. It should be noted that the agency would not have responsibility for making applications under this legislation, but that applications must be made to the Court of Protection. Whether any applications had been made to the Court of Protection and If so, whether the provider was complying with any Court Order.
People who used the service, mostly children and young adults, had a variety of complex support needs and from the nine care plans that we looked at we found that the information and guidance provided to staff was clear. Any risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed, and the action needed to mitigate against risks was recorded. We found that risk assessments were updated regularly.
During our review of care plans we found that these were tailored to people’s unique and individual needs. Communication, methods of providing care and support with the appropriate guidance for each person’s needs were in place and regularly reviewed.
We looked at the training records of 14 support workers. We saw that in all cases, mandatory training had been undertaken and the type of specialised training they required was tailored to the needs of the people they were supporting. We found that staff appraisals were not happening at least annually, and in some cases it had been two or more years since staff had their performance appraised. We were informed that the service was aware that this was the case and that improvements were necessary, and for staff to have a development plan arising from an appraisal system.
We found that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and worked in ways that demonstrated this. From the conversations we had with people, and records we looked at, which showed us that people’s preferences had been recorded and that staff worked well to ensure these preferences were respected, whether they be children or adults.
Records which we viewed showed that people were able to complain and felt confident to do so if needed. People could therefore feel confident that any concerns they had would be listened to.
People who used the service and relatives told us that they provided their views about the quality of the service to the registered manager or other staff. However, the service accepted that they were not doing this with staff, other health and social care professionals and stakeholders. We found that the registered person had not taking steps to regularly assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.
We recommended that the service seeks advice and guidance from a reputable sources about risk assessments, ensure that staff have an increased awareness of the policies, procedures and information in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
There were two breaches of regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
We found that most people were satisfied with the care they received. Feedback forms showed that staff performance and care provision were positive features of the service. One person commented "We are so well supported." We saw evidence that care plans and risk assessments were completed appropriately.
The service co-operated proactively when responsibility for people's care was shared between multiple providers. We saw evidence that support workers attended multidisciplinary meetings as required and that all communications between agencies were suitably documented.
Support workers were appraised annually and had access to appropriate induction, supervision and continuing professional development. This meant that staff had the required skills and knowledge to undertake their roles safely.
Records held by the service about people, staff training and management processes were up to date, accurate and stored securely. We saw evidence that the provider used paper and electronic documentation systems that were easily accessible to staff.
We spoke with care workers who told us they received a full risk assessment and care plans from the provider for any children and young people they were supporting. They told us they were invited to meet people and their parents. One person told us "it gives both parties a chance to get to know each other".
We looked at eight risk assessments and care plans. Risk assessments were carried out in people's homes by the manager or an experienced staff member.
We saw records of feedback questionnaires that had been carried out. Comments that we saw from people included "I am happy with the high quality of care and efficient support" and "I have no complaints". One parent told us "I am very happy with the support given". Another person told us "the care workers are brilliant".
We looked at eight staff records and saw evidence of completed application forms and photocopies of proof of identity and address. All records that we looked at contained recent CRB checks and we saw written references from previous employers for all care workers. Staff records contained relevant training certificates obtained with the provider.