• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Flat 1

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

5 Wiltie Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT19 5AX (01303) 250261

Provided and run by:
Blythson Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

30 & 31 July 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 30 and 31 July 2015, we gave the registered manager short notice of our inspection to ensure that the office was staffed when we arrived, and to make arrangements for us to meet people using the service. This supported living service supports four people with the regulated activity of ‘personal care’. Two of whom shared one house, and the other two people shared another house. The people supported all had needs relating to their learning disability.

External stakeholders held this service in high regard and stated that it was well led, provided an excellent standard of support to people, and was a role model for this type of service. People were able to tell us about living in the service but not everyone was able to speak in any depth about their experiences of support. They told us that there were always staff around to support them and this made them feel safe. They said that staff supported them to access the community and do the things they wanted to do.

The service was required to have a registered manager and one was in place. 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.

We found the service was well managed and people received their medicines safely but we found one example where medicine administration times were undated and unsigned, and this was discussed with the registered manager who took immediate action to rectify this. The Recruitment of new staff ensured that all relevant checks were undertaken before they commenced the support of people, but discussions with applicants about any gaps in their employment histories had not been routinely recorded.

Care plans were personalised, up to date and accurately reflected people’s care and support needs. They included information about people’s ‘likes’, ‘dislikes’, interests and background and guided staff in provided the appropriate level of support.

We observed staff interactions with people to show warmth, humour, patience, kindness and respect, and people and staff were observed chatting and laughing together.

People were cared for by an established and, motivated staff team. There were enough staff available to flexibly support people’s individual needs. They were well trained and showed they understood how to meet people’s specific health, care and treatment needs.

Staff in the service were working to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager and staff had received training around this legislation and how it should be interpreted in their daily support and practice. No one receiving the regulated activity of personal care was subject to an order of the Court of Protection, or had a lasting Power of Attorney in place. People were protected from decisions being taken without their involvement because staff showed they understood the actions to take to assess people’s capacity and seek the involvement of others to make best interest decisions on the person’s behalf.

The registered manager and the Company directors provided effective leadership to the service.

They had a visible presence within the service and monitored the quality of its operation. The views of staff and people were sought and acted upon. Relatives and external professionals were kept informed about people’s individual progress

Staff were knowledgeable about people, understood their communication and were effective in meeting their needs. Staff respected people’s dignity, privacy and rights; and advocated on their behalf with other agencies. Staff also ensured people’s healthcare needs were met. People were actively involved with the local community and staff supported them to engage in a wide variety of activities and interests in the community.

The registered provider and staff were actively participating in research conducted by the Tizard Centre, Canterbury, and was a member of organisations promoting good practice in the delivery of support to people with learning disabilities, such as Kent Challenging Behaviour Network, and Paradigm.

We have made an improvement recommendation in relation to staff recruitment records:

The provider should ensure that staff recruitment records contain the information specified in regard to gaps in employment histories as required under regulation 19 (3) (a) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

18, 19 December 2013

During a routine inspection

Fifteen people use the supported living service, so we visited over two days. This meant we could meet and speak with three people and with five staff members (including the managers).

People told us that staff got to know them well and gave the right support. We saw that staff had been on training courses and had regular supervisions. One person said that the service was 'better than residential, I get to choose who supports me, who is best for me'. Another said 'staff are OK!' We saw that care plans reflected the support and developmental potential of people. We saw that person-centred planning happened across all support.

The complaints system was helpful and was used in weekly meetings in an informal way. This had prompted people to speak up and sort out problems before they became complaints. This had meant people's services were developed around them.

All people were encouraged and supported to make mostly wise food and drink choices to keep them healthy. We were told that 'staff help with cooking if I need it, but my flat-mate and I do most of it'. We saw that where other people needed more help, staff were providing it.

We saw medicines were handled safely and people were involved as much as they could or wanted to be. We saw that records were reviewed and kept up to date so that people continued to receive safe and suitable services.

20 March 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit the registered manager was not available but another manager kindly supported the inspection.

During our visit we spoke with staff and people who used the service. From our discussions and observation we saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect.

We saw that people experienced care and support that met their needs and that staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported. They knew their likes and dislikes and provided care and support in a personalised way, respecting people's individuality.

Staff we spoke to understood how to support people, assisted them to make choices and maintain as much independence as possible. A member of staff told us "we try and split up in the shop when we go shopping to try and get people to be as independent as possible but still there for support." "A person who used the service said "I am given choices, I get to say what I want."

We saw that staff worked well as a team and communicated and supported each other to deliver the service.

In order to protect the people who used the service, we saw that the provider carried out a rigorous staff recruitment process which included relevant criminal record checks. They ensured new staff received a comprehensive induction programme to support them in their role.

There were processes in place to monitor the quality of service being provided and we saw that people were involved through detailed assessments, regular reviews and one to one discussions.