We carried out a review of the data available to us about Fast 24 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 Fast 24, you can give feedback on this service.
Not everyone using Fast 24 receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. There was only one person who received personal care at the time of the inspection.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.
This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The registered manager is also the provider for this location.
The service was safe. Staff received training about safeguarding and were competent to report any concerns. There were enough staff to ensure people received support at a time they wanted. Safe recruitment practices were in place to employ suitable staff. Staff understood the importance of good infection control and wore appropriate equipment provided to keep people safe. Staff received training in medicines. However, at the time of the inspection people managed their own medicines.
The service was effective. Staff completed induction and training to meet people’s needs effectively. Staff received regular supervision and meetings. The registered manager and staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) principles, staff understood the importance of promoting people’s choice. Care needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff supported people with their nutritional and hydration requirements.
The service was caring. Staff were introduced to people and delivered care in a compassionate way. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported people to maintain relationships. Staff delivered care that was supportive, kind and caring. People were involved in the planning and reviews of their care and support.
The service was very responsive. People`s needs were assessed to ensure people received the support they required. People were involved with their care reviews and received support that promoted their independence. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints if required and received their calls at the appropriate time for them.
The service was well-led. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager was clear about their vision and values for the service and what they wanted to achieve. The registered manager had an overview of the service, identified issues were actioned. Regular surveys and visits were completed to ensure people’s views were sought. Staff felt there was strong leadership and could contact the registered manager at any time.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We carried out an announced inspection on 02 February 2016 and made telephone calls to people who used the service 03 February 2016.
Fast 24 is a community based service providing support for people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection, there was one person being supported by the service although other people had used the service in the past.
There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised and how to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm.
The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there were sufficient staff to support people who used the service safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and would seek people’s consent before they provided any care or support. The provider had supervision and support policies in place, and staff had been trained to meet people’s individual needs.
People were supported by caring and respectful staff. Due to the size of the service, staff were able to get to know people well.
People’s needs had been assessed, and support plans took account of their individual preferences, and choices. Staff supported people when required to attend health care visits such as GP appointments.
The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service. The provider also had quality monitoring processes in place to ensure that they were meeting the required standards of care.