Archived: Your Lifestyle LLP Dom Care

Your Lifestyle provides personal care for people who require support in their own home. At the time of our inspection 15 people were using the service .

There was 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.’

The service was safe. There was sufficient staffing to ensure safe care and treatment was delivered to people receiving a service. Risk assessments were implemented and reflected the current level of risk to people . Medicine administration and recording was safe. People were protected from abuse and neglect and staff had a good understanding of safeguarding policies and procedures.

People were receiving effective care and support. Staff received appropriate training which was relevant to their role. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

The service was caring. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff. It was evident people were receiving a service which was personalised to their individual needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respect and dignity.

The service was responsive. Care plans were person centred and provided sufficient detail to provide safe and quality care to people. Care plans were reviewed and people were involved in the planning of their care. There was a robust complaints procedure in place and where complaints had been made, there was evidence these had been dealt with appropriately.

The service was well-led. Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. Quality assurance checks and audits were occurring regularly and identified actions needed to improve the service.

We found that the provider had taken action to address the issues raised. We found that medicines were safely administered and were handled appropriately. Important events that affected the welfare, health and safety of people using the service were reported to the Care Quality Commission so that where needed, action could be taken. People's personal records and other records were accurate and fit for purpose.

We spoke with five members of senior staff. They discussed with us the changes they had made. We also had positive feedback from commissioners of services.

This report should be read in conjunction with the inspection report for June 2013.

People said they felt supported to be independent. We did not see evidence that people were being put at risk or harmed due to staffing levels. One person said 'there's nothing I'd change about the service'. People felt able to raise a safeguarding concern but some people felt feedback was lacking after raising general concerns. Staff understood safeguarding policies and most had received training.

Medication was not being stored in line with people's rights. We did not identify errors on medication charts but did feel staff lacked insight into one medication audit tool in use.

Recruitment checks were being undertaken and staff were supported following poor practice. Half the staff we spoke with felt well supported and listened to. Two out of eight felt unable to report concerns. Training and supervision meetings were taking place.

Notifications had not been reliably made in a timely fashion. The provider agreed to address this and notifications have been sent without delay since the inspection. Record keeping was generally good but we found some omissions that could prevent the effective assessment of support needs.

We found that peoples health and welfare needs were being met and that support given was individualised and person centred.

We found that there were systems in place to protect people from possible abuse and that staff had an awareness of safeguarding issues.

We found that competent staff were available to support people using the service and that they received appropriate training and support to be able to meet peoples needs.

We found the quality of the service was being monitored and evidence indicated that concerns were promptly acted upon. Systems were in place to meet peoples health, welfare and safety needs.