You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 May 2016

The inspection took place on 15 March 2016 and was announced.

YourLife (Littlehampton) provides personal care to older persons in a setting called ‘assisted living’ where people have their own privately owned apartment in a purpose built development. The assisted living scheme also had communal areas such as a lounge and restaurant which people could use. At the time of the inspection 13 people received personal care from the service. YourLife (Littlehampton) also provided and facilitated activities for people. People were also able to purchase other services which were not personal care such as meals in the restaurant which was not provided by YourLife (Littlehampton)

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People said the staff provided safe care.

Care records showed any risks to people were assessed and there was guidance of how those risks should be managed to mitigate any risk of harm.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided so people’s care needs were safely met. Care was provided to people on an individualised appointment basis and people could also access support over a 24 hour period by using the call point system in their apartments. Whilst there were checks on the suitability of each staff to work with people we found these were sometimes completed after staff started work.

People received their medicines safely.

Staff were well trained and supervised and had access to a range of relevant training courses, including nationally recognised qualifications.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The service had policies and procedures regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s consent to care was sought. None of the people who received personal care lacked capacity to agree to their care and treatment.

People were supported with the preparation of meals where this was needed. People also made use of the restaurant where they could purchase a three course lunch each day.

People’s health care needs were assessed, monitored and recorded. Referrals for assessment and treatment were made when needed.

Staff had positive working relationships with people. Staff acknowledged people’s rights to privacy and choice. Staff were observed to treat people with kindness and respect.

Care was provided to people based on their individual needs which we call person centred care. People’s preferences and individual needs were acknowledged in the assessment of their needs and in how care was provided. Care plans gave clear details of the support each person needed which also reflected the way people preferred to be helped.

People had opportunities to socialise in the lounge and restaurant and organised their own social events and outings.

The service had a complaints procedure, which people said they were aware of.

People and their relatives’ views were sought as part of the service’s quality assurance process. The service promoted people to take part in decision making.

There were a number of systems for checking the safety and effectiveness of the service such as regular audits.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 May 2016

The service was safe.

The service had policies and procedures on safeguarding people from possible abuse. Staff knew what to do if they suspected any abuse had occurred.

Risks to people were assessed and guidance recorded so staff knew how to reduce risks to people.

Staffing was provided to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff recruitment procedures did not always ensure people were fully protected.

People received their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 May 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were trained in a number of relevant areas and had access to nationally recognised qualifications in care. Staff were supported by regular supervision.

People consent was obtained before staff provided care. The service had policies and procedures regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Not all staff had received training in the MCA but this was included in the forthcoming staff training plan.

People were supported with eating and drinking where this was needed.

Health care needs were monitored and staff contacted health care services on behalf of people if this was needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 May 2016

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Staff had good working relationships with people.

Care was personalised to meet needs and to suit people’s personal preferences. People were supported to maintain their independence.

People’s privacy was promoted in the way they were treated by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 May 2016

The service was responsive.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Care plans were individualised and reflected people’s preferences.

The ‘assisted living’ scheme gave people opportunities to socialise with others and to take part in and plan activities of their choice.

The service had a complaints procedure and people knew what to do if they wished to raise a concern.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 May 2016

The service was well-led.

The service sought the views of people as part of its quality assurance process. There were arrangements which empowered people to make decisions about their daily lives and in how the service ran.

The management of the service was open to suggestions from people and staff about how the service could improve.

There were a number of systems for checking and auditing the safety and quality of the service.