We carried out a review of the data available to us about Equal Partnerships 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 Equal Partnerships, you can give feedback on this service.
Equal Partnerships is a domiciliary care and supported living service based in Wallsend. The service provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes, who have a learning disability and/or autism. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people who received care from the service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received exceptional care and support from staff who knew them extremely well. Staff put people at the heart of the service. There was a strong person-centred ethos for how people should be supported within the organisation. The registered manager told us “We are working for and on behalf of the person. The focus is on them.” People were encouraged and supported to be a valued part of their local community, with some people accessing paid or voluntary opportunities. Feedback from relatives and people we spoke with was all extremely positive regarding the care and support they received. Comments included “We have a brilliant team of people who help him live his daily life in the best possible way. He has a range of daily activities that they support and encourage him to enjoy to the full.”
People’s care needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. Care plans contained person-centred information about what was important for the person to be able to live their lives as they wished. People were supported by staff who knew them well. For example, we were told how the service had supported an individual to overcome their anxieties relating to public transport. The service had supported the person with accessing public transport which meant they were able to achieve their goal of going on holiday abroad. The staff member said “We have built trust between us which has helped us support (person) with accessing new opportunities and opened up their world. We would do anything to make them happy.”
People’s safety was at the forefront of everything the service did. Risks were appropriately assessed and managed. People were supported to take positive risks to enable them to live fulfilling lives and maximise their independence. For example, some people had said they wanted to remain at home without staff support for short periods of time. Guidance was in place to support both the staff and person to do this safely.
Systems were in place to support the safe management of medicines. People had varying levels of support needs around their abilities to manage their own medicines. Wherever possible people were supported to take their medicines independently.
The provider followed safe recruitment practices. People were actively involved in recruiting and choosing their own staff. People were able to be involved in writing their own job advertisements for their care staff. The registered manager told us, in line with the Reach Standards, people could choose to have alternative care providers for either part or all of their care package if they wished. They said they would actively support people to do this, involving advocates if required.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staffing was organised flexibly to support people to be able to access their chosen activities such as community activities, employment, activities within their home and identified one to one activities. Staff were recruited and allocated to designated teams, who supported a small number of people who accessed the service. The registered manager explained this was to ensure people received consistency with their care and support, by staff who knew them extremely well.
People were supported by staff who spoke passionately about wanting to provide high quality care to them. There was evidence of trusting and caring relationships between staff and people who visited us at the offices. Staff were compassionate and caring when they spoke about the care and support they provided to people. Staff comments included “I believe we support people to be independent in this house. It’s the little everyday things that are important to people. We don’t do things for people, we encourage them to be independent and keep their skills. We enable them which is key”, and “We fit around the person. Rotas are flexible to make sure people are where they need/want to be. We do everything we can to make things happen for the person, to make sure we are person centred.”
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The leadership and management were praised by people receiving the service, relatives and staff for their commitment and hard work to ensuring people received the care and support to meet their needs. One staff member told us “Our foundations are quite unique. Everything is focused on the person and what they want to do in life.”
The organisation had as a standard the ethos to treat staff well. They had recently invested in a “well-being” programme to support them to understand the mental health and well-being needs of the staff. House managers had attended mental health training to support their understanding of mental health awareness for both people using the service and staff. One staff member said, “I have just completed training in two workbooks on mental health awareness. As a manager it is important for me to understand about the signs and symptoms of things such as anxiety and depression, so that I can support staff and people we support with their mental health needs.”
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. In line with The Real Tenancy Test and Reach standards people had separate tenancy agreements and care contracts. These support people to have control of where and who they live with. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection in March 2017 the service was rated Outstanding (published 30 May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about Equal Partnerships until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At our last inspection in July and August 2014, the service was rated as ‘Outstanding'. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Outstanding' and all the fundamental standards we inspected against were met.
This inspection took place on the 22 and 23 March 2017 and was announced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Under this provider's registration with the Commission there is a requirement that a registered manager needs to be in post to manage the carrying on of the regulated activity at this location. One of the providers and owners of the company had taken on this role and they had been registered with the Commission as the registered manager of the service since December 2010. 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 other provider had assumed the position of nominated individual for the service as required by their registration with the Commission.
People's safety was paramount. Risks were appropriately assessed and managed. The service actively promoted positive risk taking so that people could live fulfilling lives, that were as independent as possible, whilst still remaining safe. People had been supported to travel independently within the community and arrangements were in place for staff to oversee that they did so safely. Staff had developed positive and meaningful relationships with people and encouraged them to overcome challenges and risks to achieve their goals.
People were encouraged and supported to manage risks within their own home environments. Regular checks on fire safety equipment and utilities were carried out, and servicing undertaken where necessary in line with best practice guidelines.
Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place to aid and guide staff about how to protect people from different forms of harm and abuse. Staff were fully aware of their personal responsibilities to safeguard vulnerable people in their care and they had no hesitation in reporting concerns. Any historic issues that had come to light had been dealt with appropriately and measures put in place to monitor and highlight any future concerns. The providers promoted an open culture and staff told us that any safety concerns raised at any time were dealt with very promptly by the providers.
Staffing levels were decided by people's needs, how they lived their lives and what support they therefore needed. Staff were structured in small teams supporting any number of individuals who lived in their own accommodations settings, some people shared houses, some people lived alone. Each staff team reported to a manager. All gaps in staffing for example, due to annual leave and sickness, were covered internally by other members of staff within the service.
The recruitment of staff was robust and appropriate vetting checks were in place to ensure that potential new staff were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. People were actively involved in the recruitment process, as were their relatives. They drafted job adverts together with the providers and also interviewed potential new staff. Staff were appropriately inducted, trained, supervised, appraised and given opportunities for development. The providers told us they felt strongly that staff needed to be supported as much as people, so that they could give the best care and support possible. Regular assessments of staff competencies were also carried out to ensure their skills remained up to date. Staff told us they could not feel more supported on both a professional and personal level.
Staff were highly motivated and reflected pride in their work. They talked about people in a way which demonstrated they wanted to support them as much as possible and provide the best standards of care possible for each individual. Each person in receipt of care had valued friendships and supportive relationships with the members of staff in the team that supported them and this had a positive impact of their overall health and wellbeing. It was clear that staff and people had similar interests and this added to their commonality and helped develop their relationships and understanding of each other.
Medicines were handled safely. People were empowered to be as independent as possible with the management and taking of their own medicines, but they were supported to check that this was done safely.
The care and support the service delivered was extremely effective and people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals confirmed this in their feedback. Staff were extremely knowledgeable about people's needs and how best to support them. Their general healthcare and nutritional needs were met and monitored closely.
CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was appropriately applied and applications to deprive people of their liberty lawfully had been made to prevent them from coming to any harm where they lacked capacity. The service understood their legal responsibility under this Act. They assessed people’s capacity when their care commenced and on an on-going basis when necessary. Decisions that needed to be made in people’s best interests had been undertaken and records about these decisions were maintained. Records of associated capacity assessments were not always in place due the service not always being the completing party. We discussed this with the provider who assured us that in the future they would ensure that capacity assessments were obtained, or carried out internally for evidential purposes, if these were not forwarded to them.
The service had a positive, vibrant and caring culture which people, relatives and staff supported and promoted. People told us they were well supported and well cared for. One person said, "They are amazing. The staff are amazing!" All of the relatives we spoke with told us they trusted the staff and the service in general with the care of their loved ones. They commented that their family members had made significant progress whilst being supported by the service, and their lives, as well as their family member's lives, had been transformed. People were actively encouraged to maintain relationships with their families and friends and staff were passionate about supporting them in any way possible in order to remain connected to important people in their lives.
Staff were exceptional in supporting people to be as independent as possible in their lives. We saw lots of examples of where people were striving towards independence. For example, where people were capable and it was safe to do so, they signed their own medicine administration records and took responsibility for storing their medicines in their own rooms. People's dignity and privacy was protected and promoted by staff. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity and they explained how in their daily roles they protected, respected and promoted people's dignity.
People described how their care was delivered and what they told us demonstrated the service was extremely person-centred. Relatives and staff echoed that the service was person-centred in their feedback and our own observations and evidence gathered supported this. Every element of the approach of the providers and staff was centred around the people who used the service, their abilities, feelings, wishes and goals. There was nothing that the staff or providers themselves did not strive to overcome in supporting people to achieving and realising their aims. People's care records contained a range of information about the levels of care and support they needed to live their lives in the ways that they wanted to. These records were regularly reviewed and updated when people's needs or goals and aspirations changed.
People lived active, social and inclusive lives and this had a very positive impact on their health and wellbeing. The providers shared with us a number of moving stories about how staff had encouraged and supported people to achieve their goals in life. These ranged from a blind person driving a car, to people completing college courses and some going on to secure paid employment. Staff and the providers themselves were persistent in advocating for people to help them be the best they could possibly be. People were heavily involved in the community, they gave talks about disability at schools and worked with community groups to raise awareness about disability. In terms of activities people lived life to the full, going to the cinema, gym, friendship groups, theatre groups, swimming, shopping, cycling and running.
People, staff and relatives could not speak highly enough of the providers and their approach to leading their organisation. The providers themselves were focused, driven and extremely caring. They had a person-centred ethos, visions and values and this emanated down through the company. There was an open culture which resulted in the providers being fully aware of any issues or concerns within the service as they arose. People, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals engaged with them constantly to achieve a common goal of positive outcomes for people in receipt of care. The service worked with ease and in partnership with other organisations to support care provision, servi
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This was an announced inspection carried out on 15 July 2014 and 4 August 2014. We carried out this inspection at short notice because we needed to check that the registered manager, or another senior person in the service, would be available to speak with us at the time of our visit.
We last inspected the service in June 2013 and found at that time the provider was meeting all regulations covered.
Equal Partnerships provides personal support to people who have learning disabilities and live in their own home. At the time of our inspection 16 people were receiving personal support.
The service had a registered manager and a responsible person (two Directors). 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 told us they felt safe receiving support from Equal Partnerships. Family members told us they felt confident in the fact their relatives were well looked after.
We noted the service encouraged positive risk taking and did not restrict people’s interests and encouraged them to try new things. We saw that risk assessments were completed on an individual basis.
People told us they were fully involved in recruiting and selecting their team of support staff. We saw that each recruitment campaign was individual to the person. People and their family members told us they had been involved in interviews and selections.
We saw that the staffing team were dynamic and each individual had a personal budget and chose on a weekly basis the support they wanted to receive and what they wanted to do with their time.
We saw staff training was regularly completed and was up to date. Staff told us they received essential training but also training specific to the people they were supporting. We saw that supervision and appraisals were regularly completed. The service had involved people in part of the supervision process and where comfortable, they helped to conduct a part of the supervision session.
We saw that external professionals were regularly involved where needed, for example we saw the speech and language therapists were involved and had helped support a person to communicate with an emotion board. Staff and the managers told us, other professionals were used to support with people’s permission.
People, relatives and staff were all positive about the care provided. One relative we spoke to said, “We have one of the best providers in the country and it’s very well known in Tyneside. The care they provide for my [relative] has been the making of them.” Another relative said, “My [relative] is the best testimony to the standard of the company, he tells everyone how he now loves his life. His happiness has always been our goal and we’ve reached it with Equal Partnerships.”
We saw that the service worked with people to arrange and support them to try new things. We saw activities were varied and regular. We noted the organisation supported people to attend a number of group events as well as supporting them to fulfil individual passions.
The service had developed a complaints card which had a number of variations depending upon people’s abilities. The card and the complaints policy were available but no complaints had been received. People and their relatives told us they could raise anything if it was needed but that they were exceptionally happy with the service they received.
Everyone we spoke with was very positive about the ethos of the organisation and the support of the two managers. One relative said, “These two people who run it really understand what my [relative] needs and they infect everyone with their enthusiasm. They’re brilliant.” Another relative said, “They are so special the people that run it, they really care and they not only value our [relative] but us as well. They know that we have experience that they can use and include us in everything.”