We carried out a review of the data available to us about Quinn Domiciliary Agency Limited 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 Quinn Domiciliary Agency Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Quinn Domiciliary Agency Ltd is a supported living service providing personal care to 9 people who lived in shared houses in the community. Support is provided to people with a learning disability and autistic people
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.
Right Support
People told us the service enabled them to have a good quality of life. Staff focused on people’s strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life. Staff supported people to take part in activities and pursue their interests.
Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence. Staff supported people to make decisions, in line with best practice guidance. Staff gave people time to communicate their views, using their preferred communication method.
The service supported people in a holistic way which promoted their wellbeing. Staff enabled people to access health and social care support when needed. Staff supported people with their medicines in a way that promoted their independence and achieved the best possible health outcomes for them.
Right Care
People received kind and compassionate care. Staff treated people with respect and dignity. They knew people well and responded to their individual needs.
The service had enough staff with the right skills and experience to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.
Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to keep people safe. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.
People who had individual ways of communicating, such as body language, sounds, Makaton (a form of sign language), pictures and symbols could interact comfortably with staff and others involved in their care. Staff had the necessary skills to understand them.
People’s care and support plans reflected their range of needs and this promoted their wellbeing and enjoyment of life. Staff had a range of information to know how to support people in a person-centred way.
Right culture
People led inclusive and empowered lives because of the ethos, values, attitudes and behaviour of the management and staff. The whole service placed people’s rights, wishes and aspirations at the heart of everything they did.
People were supported by staff who understood best practice in relation to the wide range of strengths, impairments or sensitivities people with a learning disability and/or autistic people may have. This meant people received support that was tailored to their needs.
Staff evaluated the quality of support provided to people, involving the person, their families and other professionals as appropriate. The registered manager and senior staff had good systems in place to understand what was happening in the service. They were visible across the service, which minimised the risk of closed cultures developing.
People’s quality of life was enhanced by the service’s culture of improvement and the desire to make changes which improved people’s lives.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Why we inspected
We undertook this comprehensive inspection to assess that the service was applying the principles of Right support, right care, right culture.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for the service was good, published (29 September 2017).
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This inspection took place on 29 September. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to know that someone would be available.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There were safeguarding procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. Incidents were recorded and analysed and personalised risk assessments were in place to reduce the risk of harm to people. and were regularly reviewed. People received their medicines as they had been prescribed and there were robust procedures for the safe management of medicines. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service.
There were sufficiently skilled and knowledgeable staff on duty who were trained and supported to meet people's assessed needs. Staff worked flexibly to ensure that people could take part in activities that they enjoyed. Robust recruitment and selection processes were in place to ensure that staff were of a suitable character.
Staff received training to ensure that they had the necessary skills to meet the needs of the people who lived at the service and had regular supervision and appraisals.
People using the service were supported to make choices about what they did and information was provided in a format that they could understand. Staff had supported people by providing information about healthy living choices. People received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs and people's consent was sought before they were provided with care and support. The service was up to date with the Mental Capacity Act 2015.
Staff meetings were arranged, so that staff could discuss and be involved with the smooth running of the service. People and their relatives were regularly asked for feedback to enable improvements to be made. There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service. The service had a statement of purpose and an effective quality assurance system was in place.
People, their relatives and staff spoken with had confidence in the management team and felt the service had clear leadership. There were effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service and address any concerns.
The service met all relevant fundamental standards.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 12 August 2015 and was announced.
Quinn Domiciliary Agency Limited offers personal care to a small group of people with learning disabilities and mental health needs in their own homes. The organisation offers support to people living in Wickford and the surrounding area. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people using the service.
The service had a registered manager 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We had carried out an announced inspection on 17 February 2014 and found that the service required improvements to the administration of medicines. After the inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the improvements required.
At our inspection on 12 August 2015, we found that improvements had been made to the processes for supporting people to take their prescribed medicines safely.
People were safe and staff knew what actions to take to protect them from abuse. The provider had processes in place to identify and manage risk.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who were safely recruited, were regularly supervised and had the skills to meet people’s complex and varied needs. New and existing staff had access to a flexible and comprehensive training programme.
The provider had policies in place with regard to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The Act, Safeguards and Codes of Practice were in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there was a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals.
Staff had a good understanding of the importance of obtaining consent and suitable measures were in place where people lacked the capacity to make decisions. People were supported with meals and staff at the service worked with health professionals to support people with their health care needs.
People’s independence and culture was promoted by staff, and they were involved in decisions about their care. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect by staff who knew them well and their rights were upheld.
Detailed assessments had been carried out and personalised care plans were in place which reflected individual needs and preferences. The provider had an effective complaints procedure and people had confidence that concerns would be investigated and addressed.
The service benefitted from a clear management structure and visible leadership. A range of systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being delivered and to drive improvements.
We saw that there were plans to assess people's needs and staff were recruited and trained to take on that role. One person who used the service told us they were happy with the support they received and that they liked the staff supporting them.
We found that care plans were supported with assessments from professionals and had dynamic risk assessments in place that people using the service agreed with to keep them safe. We found that medicines management could improve as recording of medication did not protect people.
The person we spoke with told us that the staff knew how they wanted to be supported and that they made sure they got what they needed. We asked the same person what they thought of the quality of care and they said, 'They treat me OK.'
People told us that they were included when their care plan was written and were given an opportunity to read it before it was finalised.
Records showed that staff were recruited properly, with all necessary safeguarding checks being done. We spoke with three staff members who told us that they received supervision and that they felt that they received sufficient training to enable them to do their job effectively. We found evidence that the organisation had systems in place to monitor the quality of care the service provided.