You are here

Turning Point - Bradford Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 25 November 2016

On 18 August 2016 we inspected Turning Point Bradford and made telephone calls to people who used the service and staff on 31 August 2016. At the time of our inspection, there were six people using the service. This was an announced inspection which meant we gave the service 24 hours’ notice to make sure someone was in the office.

Turning Point Bradford delivers up to 24-hour support for adults with learning disabilities, giving them the necessary support and encouragement enabling them to live happy and fulfilled lives. The service is run as a supported living service, with people having tenancy agreements. Currently the service is across two houses in the Bradford area.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was on annual leave during the first day of inspection.

People told us they felt safe and had no concerns about the way they were treated or supported.

Staff were aware of the signs and indicators of abuse. However we found examples of staff not reporting potential abuse appropriately. We observed people were comfortable and relaxed around staff. We observed that staff interaction with people was friendly, encouraging and caring.

We found people’s medicines were not always managed in accordance with safe procedures and improvements were needed.

We noted a number of checks had been completed before staff began working for the service. However background checks on people should be completed periodically and we found checks were completed at long intervals increasing the risk of potential abuse.

People told us they were given support and encouragement from staff to clean and maintain their houses. Staff gave us examples of how they supported people.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs, backgrounds and personalities. People told us they were given privacy when they wanted. People were supported to maintain and build their independence skills both within their own home and as appropriate, in the community.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide support flexibly. People told us there was always staff around and they were not restricted by staffing levels.

There were systems in place to ensure staff received training, ongoing development, supervision and support.

People said they had been involved in discussions about the support they needed and wanted and were aware of their support plans. Processes were in place to monitor and respond to people’s health care needs and people were supported with eating and drinking depending on their individual circumstances.

People were supported to participate in a range of appropriate activities and jobs and to pursue their hobbies and interests. Activities were tailored to the individual and people told us they were what they wanted to do.

People told us they were aware of who to speak to if they were unhappy and were confident they would be listened to. The service had a complaints procedure in place and management were aware how to act in response.

There were systems in place to monitor staff practice, review the quality of information in people’s records and to obtain people’s feedback about the service provided. However we found the monitoring and auditing systems needed further development.

People did not express any concerns about the management and leadership arrangements.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 25 November 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

People’s medicines were not always managed in accordance with safe procedures.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide support flexibly.

The risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been considered, recorded and kept under review.

Staff were able to describe the action they would take if they witnessed or suspected any abusive or neglectful practice. However we found examples where staff had not reported potential abuse appropriately.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 November 2016

The service was effective.

People told us they were happy with the support they received and were encouraged and supported to make their own choices and decisions.

Staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported as appropriate to eat and drink. People’s health and wellbeing was monitored and responded to as necessary.

Processes were in place to train and support staff in carrying out their roles and responsibilities.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 November 2016

The service was caring.

People made positive comments about the staff team. They said they got on well with management and staff and were happy with their approach. They indicated their privacy and dignity was respected.

People were supported and cared for in a way which promoted their involvement, safety and independence.

Staff were aware of people’s individual needs, personalities and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People told us they were involved with the planning and review of their or their support.

People said the service was flexible and responsive to their changing needs and preferences. People were supported to participate in a range of activities, hobbies and interests.

Processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns. People were aware of who to speak to and were confident they would be listened to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 25 November 2016

The service was not always well-led.

The service had a registered manager who provided clear leadership and had a presence in the service.

There were systems in place to consult with people on their experiences of the service and to monitor and develop the quality of the service provided.

Arrangements were in place to monitor, review and develop the service. However some audits had not identified areas of concern we found during inspection. Other audits had not been completed.