Archived: SMILE Independent Living Support

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

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People were cared for by staff who had been trained to support them to live as independently as possible. Staff were well informed about people's needs and personal goals.

There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people using the service and a member of the management team was available on-call in case of emergencies.

Is the service effective?

People that we spoke with confirmed that they were happy with the service they received. One person told us "Smile are excellent, I love them" and "they have helped me to get out and about again".

We saw evidence in people's care records of personal goals that had already been met and the people that we spoke with confirmed that the provider had helped them to be achieved.

Is the service caring?

All of the staff that we spoke with were kind and attentive to people's needs. Staff had excellent knowledge of the people that they were supporting.

Support workers and managers that we spoke with were all caring and enthused about the service they offered. One support worker told us "I enjoy helping make people become more independent" and "it's great to see people's situation improve".

We saw a compliments folder that contained many cards and letters of thanks from people who used the service and their families.

Is the service responsive?

Care records that we saw confirmed that people's choices were taken into consideration when planning the service. The goals that had been documented were person centred and each person's plan of care was focussed to achieving the level of independence that they wished to attain.

We saw that activities were planned for people, such as discos and outings. We also saw and heard that staff supported people to maintain relationships with friends and family.

Is the service well-led?

The manager and all of the staff that we spoke with had an in-depth knowledge of people who use the service and their individual needs. The manager spoke confidently about quality assurance and we saw evidence of how they monitored the service. We saw evidence of a people survey that showed that the service was well received by people and their representatives. No concerns had been raised.

We asked people who use the service if they felt they could raise any concerns and they confirmed this was the case. Both people also stated that they had never had cause to raise any concerns or complaints.

Staff that we spoke with told us they felt they were well trained and well supported by the manager.

The people we spoke with were happy with the support they received. One person told us they were 'always happy' and always had the same support worker. They said 'I'm happy with what I get at the moment'. The other person had a team of six support staff. They were given a note of who would be supporting them for the sessions during the week so they knew in advance who to expect. They said 'Smile are very helpful' and 'all of the staff work with me, we work as a team'.

People were consulted and gave consent to the support they received. People's needs were assessed and support plans were completed and reviewed. People were supported with their health needs and medicines and records were maintained of the support provided.

The recruitment of staff was in line with legislative requirements and good practice with appropriate checks carried out. Staff were provided with guidance on the code of conduct expected of them including health and safety expectations and lone working.

There was a statement of purpose that clearly outlined the function of the organisation including the processes for managing complaints.

People's needs were assessed and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at people's records both in the office and in their homes. Files were consistently organised with each file having a profile and photograph of the person inside the front cover. In addition there was a 'staff alerter' form that recorded essential information that staff needed to know about the person's medical, communication, health and safety and social needs.

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. We saw that staff had training in safeguarding vulnerable people with the local safeguarding authority in the early stages of their employment. This was supplemented by three yearly updates.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported. They were given opportunities for training and development.

The provider used surveys to see if people were satisfied with the service they received. Audits were used to check that staffing documents and care records were in place.