Archived: Craegmoor Supporting You in the North East

This comprehensive inspection took place on 1 June 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office. At the last inspection in April 2016 the service was rated Good. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Craegmoor Supporting You in the North East’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Before the inspection we sent out questionnaires to people who the service, staff, relatives and friends, and community professionals to ask what they thought about the service. We received two completed questionnaires back, and these indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and 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 rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was no registered manager. However, the registered provider had arranged for one of their multisite managers, who had an existing registration with CQC, to manage the service. They had commenced the process of applying to CQC to add Craegmoor Supporting You in the North East to their registration. 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.

People we spoke with felt safe using the service. We saw that the service was particularly person centred and that risks were well managed. People were safely supported with their medicines. There was a procedure in place to ensure any safeguarding concerns were addressed and reported. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and it was evident that staff had been safely recruited.

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. The service supported people to maintain a healthy diet and people who required the involvement of health care professionals were assisted to obtain this. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and had received support, training and supervision to help them to carry out their support role effectively.

People told us the support team were very caring. They said they treated people with respect and dignity, and staff supported them in a way which met their needs. People and their relatives had been involved in formulating support plans.

The service continued to ensure that people’s needs were assessed and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual support plans. People’s plans clearly identified their individual preferences and the areas in which they needed support. It was also evident that staff worked hard to provide people with the support they needed to have a good lifestyle that suited their individual and cultural needs and aspirations. The service continued to ensure that there was an effective and accessible complaints procedure.

The registered provider continued to ensure there was an effective system to monitor the quality of service delivery and of staff performance. People, and those who were important to them, were routinely consulted about their satisfaction in the service they received. It was evident that people’s comments and ideas were used to develop and improve the service. It was also evident that the team worked well in partnership with other professionals, to provide a person centred service that met people’s needs.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

This was an announced inspection, which meant the provider knew we would be visiting. This was because we wanted to make sure the registered manager, or Craegmoor Supporting You in the North East is an agency providing support for community activities and some personal care to people with learning disabilities or mental health needs who live in their own homes or in supported living accommodation. They provide the support to people who live in Rotherham and surrounding areas. A supported living service is a type of service that helps people to live independently in their own homes and in the local community, often in shared accommodation.

someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to support the inspection.

There was a registered manager who oversaw the service. 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.

Before the inspection we sent out questionnaires to people who the service, staff, relatives and friends, and community professionals to ask what they thought about Craegmoor Supporting You in the North East. We received 33 completed questionnaires back, and these indicated a very high level of satisfaction with the service.

People’s needs had been assessed before their support package commenced and people and their relatives had been involved in formulating and updating the support plans. The information included in the care records we saw was individualised and clearly identified people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care and the environment they lived in.

Where people needed support taking their medication this was provided by staff who had been trained to carry out this role. The service had clear medication policies to ensure staff could offer support to people safely.

We found the service employed enough staff to meet the needs of the people being supported. This included consistently providing the same care staff, who visited people on a regular basis.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse appropriately. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse.

There were appropriate recruitment checks undertaken when employing new staff. We found staff had received a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by regular refresher training to update their knowledge and skills.

We found people received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were identified and their care package amended to meet their assessed needs. Staff sought to obtain people’s views and to provide support in the way they wanted. Because staff had good information about people it helped to make sure support was tailored to people’s individual needs and preferences.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

People were confident to raise any concerns they may have had. We saw the complaints process was written in a suitable format for people who used the service.

People benefited from a well run service. There were systems in place for monitoring the service and for identifying what was working well and where improvements were needed. People were encouraged to give their views about the quality of the care provided to help drive up standards.

People we spoke with told us they received a good service, they said it had improved and communication was much better. One person told us, 'I now know who my support worker is and what they are supporting me with.'

People had been involved in developing their support and care plans. People's needs were identified and regularly assessed.

People told us that staff treated them with respect, listened to them and gave them choices. One relative told us, 'The service provided has definitely improved, previously we had experienced problems. We were not always told who was turning up and sometimes staff didn't turn up with no explanation, however this had greatly improved.'

We found that the provider had implemented an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

People told us that staff treated them with respect, listened to them, gave them choices, made them feel safe and supported them. One person told us, 'I have a very good care worker who I can talk to.'

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

We found that the provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.