• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Voyage (DCA) (East)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Asset House, 28 Thorpe Wood, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE3 6SR (01733) 332490

Provided and run by:
Voyage 1 Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 29 September 2018

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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

At the time of the inspection we were aware that the death of a person who had lived at one of the supported living services provided by Voyage DCA (East) had been referred to the corner for an inquest. We took this information into account when planning our inspection.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit to ensure that someone would be available at the office to meet with us. This also allowed for people to be asked if they would like to come and meet with the inspector and share their views on the service being provided. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Inspection site visit activity started on 05 July 2018 and ended on 23 July 2018. It included a visit to the office, visiting people in their homes, meeting with staff, phone calls to relatives and emails to healthcare professionals. We visited the office location on 05 July 2018 to see the manager; and to review care records, policies and procedures.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We reviewed notifications the registered provider had sent us. A notification is important information about particular events that occur at the service that the provider is required by law to tell us about.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This in information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service, the registered manager, the operations manager, a service manager and three support workers. We looked at the care and support records for four people and records that related to health and safety and quality monitoring. We also looked at medication administration records (MARs).

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 29 September 2018

This service provides care and support to people living in 29 ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of the inspection there were 74 people using the service.

The inspection took place on 05,11,19 and 23 July 2018 and was announced.

The service was last inspected in December 2015 and had an overall rating of Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in place. 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.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Staff were aware of how to keep people safe from harm and what procedures they should follow to report any harm. Action had been taken to minimise the risks to people. Risk assessments identified risks and provided staff with the information they needed to reduce risks where possible. Systems were in place to promote and maintain good infection prevention and control.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff received training and their competency to do this was checked before staff could administer people’s medicines unsupervised.

Staff were only employed after they had been subject to a thorough recruitment procedure. There were enough staff employed to ensure that people had their needs met. Staff received the training they required to meet people's needs and were supported in their roles.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice and worked within the guidance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were motivated to provide care that was kind and compassionate. They knew people well and

were aware of their history, preferences, likes and dislikes. People's independence, privacy and dignity were respected and promoted.

People were supported to maintain good health as staff had the knowledge and skills to support them. There was prompt access to external healthcare professionals when needed.

People were provided with a choice of food and drink that they enjoyed. When needed staff supported people to eat and drink.

Support plans gave staff the information they required to meet people’s care and support needs. People received support in the way that they preferred and met their individual needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place. People and their relatives felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff or manager. Complaints had been dealt with appropriately.

There was an effective quality assurance process in place which included obtaining the views of people that used the service, their relatives and the staff. Where needed action had been taken to make improvements to the service being offered.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.