Archived: Scope Inclusion North London

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what parents and guardians of children using the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

Children who used the service had comprehensive support plans outlining their support needs and guidelines for support staff to keep them safe. Staff received training to facilitate this, however both staff and families we spoke with told us they felt that support workers could benefit from additional training in responding to challenging behaviour and responding to crises.

Staff followed appropriate procedures to reduce the risk and spread of infection when providing personal care support to children.

Is the service effective?

Families of children who use the service we spoke with were very positive about the service provided. One parent told us "I am personally very happy, it is a very valuable service. I get a rest from my caring responsibilities and my child is supported to learn new skills and meet new friends". Another parent told us "The befriender is a gem - they have developed such a lovely bond with my child. I have no complaints".

However, one parent we spoke with highlighted an area in which they felt the support could improve. Their child had very high support needs and required frequent hospital stays, during which the support worker did not visit them, so they were not receiving the full support hours to which they were entitled.

The provider worked closely in cooperation with other services to ensure the support provided met children's needs.

Is the service caring?

The provider had engaged a consultant to introduce person-centred support tools for staff to use, and some of these had been implemented by the time of our visit. These ensured that children were given increased say in planning and delivery of their support. Families we spoke with told us they felt the staff were very caring in their approach, with several commenting on the bond and rapport their child had developed with the support worker.

Is the service responsive?

Several families we spoke with told us they valued the flexibility of the service and had requested changes to their child's support to better meet their needs. We found that complaints were handled appropriately and the service sought and responded to feedback.

Is the service well-led?

Support staff we spoke with told us that a stable management team, in place since October 2013, had made a great difference to how well the service was led. New systems had been introduced to improve the quality of the service that children and their families received, and to monitor and manage the work of the support staff.

While some anomalies with records remained, a new temporary member of staff employed from the end of October 2013, had taken steps to address the concerns we had highlighted. We saw that this person had visited children and their families, reviewed support plans and completed these support plans appropriately. A care coordinator who had moved to another role within the organisation had also carried out a review of some of these records after our visit in July.

When we visited in July 2013, we found that the provider had failed to implement their action plan that was created to address the non-compliance we had highlighted. We asked the provider for a further action plan after our visit in July. We did not receive this action plan.

When we visited this time, we found that the provider does not have effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of children who use the service.

We found that children were typically supported by the service for two to four hours per week.

No support was provided children without the parent or guardian's consent. We found that children received continuity of care as they were supported by the same support worker each week.

Children supported by the service were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were supported to deliver care and support to an appropriate standard.

We found that the majority of records were appropriate and complete which we had not found during our last visit to the service in January 2013. However,we also found that several of the files had not been updated and that they still contained incomplete records. This meant that while the provider had taken steps to address the issues we highlighted with new records, they hadn't reviewed and updated the old files where we had identified the anomalies initially.

We spoke with three parents of six of the children who used the service. One parent told us that the support workers worked well with their children and had the right experience to meet their changing needs. Another parent told us that the two support workers who worked with their children were "exceptional, extraordinarily good" and they said "both support workers are beyond what we expected". Another parent told us that the staff were "a great bunch of people" and that they "highly value" the service.

Children's choices and independence were supported and support workers worked with children to improve their enjoyment of activities. Support workers knew children's likes and dislikes and were able to make sure that support was provided to meet these preferences. One parent told us that the support workers "understand what the children need".

We found that the provider had taken steps to make sure that children who used the service were protected from the risks of abuse.

We found that their was a risk to children who used the service of inappropriate care due to a lack of complete and accurate information to support the delivery of care.