You are here

Potensial North East Supported Living Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out checks at Potensial North East Supported Living using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 February 2016

The inspection took place on 27 November 2015. The inspection was announced. This was because the service was small we needed to be sure that someone would be home so we could carry out our inspection.

Potens, is a Domiciliary Care service that provides personal care and support to people with learning disabilities who live in their own home. The service covers the Darlington area and currently provides support to16 people.

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.

We spoke with a range of different staff members; the registered manager, area manager and care staff who told us that the registered manager was always available and approachable. Throughout the day we saw four of the people who used the service and staff were comfortable and relaxed with the registered manager and each other. The atmosphere was relaxed and we saw that staff interacted with each other and the people who used the service in a person centred way and were encouraging, friendly, positive and respectful.

From looking at people’s care plans we saw they were written in plain English and in a person centred way and made good use of pictures, personal history and described individuals care, treatment, wellbeing and support needs. These were regularly reviewed and updated by the care staff and the registered manager.

Individual care plans contained risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care records we viewed also showed us that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary for example: their GP, mental health team and care manager.

Our observations during the inspection showed us that people who use the service were supported in a person centred way by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their individual needs and wishes. The recruitment process that we looked into was safe and inclusive and people chose their own support staff.

When we looked at the staff training records we could see staff were supported to maintain and develop their skills through training and development opportunities. The staff we spoke with confirmed they attended a range of learning opportunities. They told us they had regular supervisions with the registered manager, where they had the opportunity to discuss their care practice and identify further mandatory and vocational training needs.

We were unable to observe how the service administered medicines on the day of our inspection but we were able to establish how people stored and managed them safely in their own home. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with the registered manager about how staff were trained to administer medication and we found that the medication administering process was safe.

During the inspection it was evident that the staff had a good rapport with the people who used the service and we were able to observe the positive interactions that took place. The staff were caring, positive, encouraging and attentive when communicating and supporting people in their own home with daily life tasks, care and support.

People were being encouraged to plan and participate in activities that were personalised and meaningful to them. For example, we saw staff spending time engaging with people on a one to one basis in activities in the service and we saw evidence of other activities such as art and socialising. People were being supported regularly to play an active role in their local community both with support and independently.

We saw that the service focused on supporting people to have a healthy diet. The daily menu that we saw was devised with the people who used the service and this was used to help them to plan their shopping, manage their personal budget and plan their week ahead. Individual likes and dislikes were supported with meal choices.

We saw a complaints procedure was in place and this provided information on the action to take if someone wished to make a complaint and what they should expect to happen next. People also had access to advocacy services and safeguarding contact details if they needed it.

We found that the service had been regularly reviewed through a range of internal and external audits. We saw that action had been taken to improve the service or put right any issues found. We found people who used the service; their representatives were regularly asked for their views via an annual quality survey to collect feedback about the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 15 February 2016

This service was safe.

There was sufficient staff to cover the needs of the people safely in their own homes.

People’s rights were respected and they were involved in making decisions about any risks they may take. The service had an efficient system to manage accidents and incidents and learn from them so they were less likely to happen again.

People who used the service knew how to disclose safeguarding concerns and staff knew what to do when concerns were raised and they followed effective policies and procedures.

People were supported to administer their own medication safely.



Updated 15 February 2016

This service was effective.

People could express their views about their health and quality of life outcomes and these were taken into account in the assessment of their needs and the planning of their care.

Staff were regularly supervised and appropriately trained with skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs, preferences and lifestyle choices.

Staff recruitment was inclusive and people chose their own support staff.



Updated 15 February 2016

This service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and their dignity was respected.

People who use the service had access to advocacy services to represent them.

People were understood and had their individual needs met, including needs around social inclusion and wellbeing.

Staff showed concern for people’s wellbeing. People had the privacy they needed and were treated with dignity and respect at all times.



Updated 15 February 2016

This service was responsive.

People received care and support in accordance with their preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. People and those that mattered to them were encouraged to make their views known about their care, treatment and support.

People had access to activities and outings, that were important and relevant to them and they were protected from social isolation.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s current individual needs, choices and preferences.



Updated 15 February 2016

This service was well led.

There was an emphasis on fairness, support and transparency and an open culture. Staff were supported to question practice and those who raised concerns and whistle-blowers were protected.

There was a clear set of values that included; person centred approaches, healthy lifestyles, community involvement, compassion, dignity, respect, equality and independence, which were understood by all staff.

There were effective service improvement plans and quality assurance systems in place to continually review the service including, safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents, complaints/concerns.