• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Priory Supported Living London & Home Counties

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

GHL Aviation House Ltd, The Lodge & Annex, Harmondsworth Lane, Harmondsworth, West Drayton, UB7 0LQ 07885 881040

Provided and run by:
Craegmoor Supporting You Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Priory Supported Living London & Home Counties on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Priory Supported Living London & Home Counties, you can give feedback on this service.

9 April 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

¿ Supporting you in London and Thames Valley provides a supported living service to people living in their own flats or shared accommodation within ten ‘supported living’ schemes. The aim is for people to live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements.

¿ Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, 33 people were receiving personal care.

¿ Each scheme had a manager in post, and a registered manager oversaw the ten schemes.

¿ The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and mental health needs using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ The provider had effective arrangements to protect people against the risks associated with the management of medicines.

¿ There were systems and processes to help protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and there were contingency plans in the event of staff absence. Employment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they were allowed to support people.

¿ Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated whenever people's needs changed. People and relatives told us they were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support and felt valued.

¿ The risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. People were supported to manage their own safety and remain as independent as they could be. The provider had processes in place for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents and lessons were learnt when things went wrong.

¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

¿ Staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Act. The provider had liaised with the local authority when people required Court of Protection decisions with regard to being deprived of their liberty in the receipt of care and treatment. At the time of our inspection, nobody was being deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

¿ People were protected by the provider’s arrangements in relation to the prevention and control of infection. The provider had a procedure regarding infection control and the staff had specific training in this area.

¿ People’s health and nutritional needs were recorded and met. Where possible, people using the service were supported to shop for ingredients and cooked their own food. Staff supported people to attend medical appointments where support was required.

¿ People were supported by staff who were sufficiently trained, supervised and appraised.

¿ A range of activities were arranged that met people’s individual interests and people were consulted about what they wanted to do.

¿ Staff were caring and treated people with dignity, compassion and respect. Support plans were clear and comprehensive and included people's individual needs, detailed what was important to them, how they made decisions and how they wanted their care to be provided.

¿ People told us, and we saw staff supported them in a way that took into account their diversity, values and human rights. People confirmed they were supported and encouraged to be involved in the running of the service and felt valued.

¿ Information about how to make a complaint was available to people and their families, and they felt confident that any complaint would be addressed by the management.

¿ People, relatives and staff told us that the registered manager was supportive, approachable and hands on. Staff were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

¿ The provider had some systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and where issues were identified, these were addressed promptly.

Rating at last inspection:

¿ At the first inspection of the service on 17 and 20 April 2018 the service was rated requires improvement in the key questions of ‘safe’, ‘responsive’ and ‘well led’ and overall. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions safe, responsive and well led to at least good. During this inspection we found the service had made the required improvements and met all the Regulations.

Why we inspected:

¿ This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

¿ We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

17 April 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 17 and 20 April 2018 and was announced. The service was last inspected on 12, 13 and 15 August 2014 when it was registered under another address. Supporting You in London and Thames Valley is part of Supporting You Limited which is owned by the Priory Group. Supporting You in London and Thames Valley offers a service to adults who have mental health needs and those with a learning disability and autism. There were 35 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

This service provides care and support to people living in their own flats or shared accommodation within ten ‘supported living’ schemes, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Each scheme had a manager in post, and the registered manager oversaw the ten schemes. 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.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and mental health using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Our findings during the inspection show that the provider did not always have effective arrangements to protect people against the risks associated with the management of medicines.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, but these had not always been effective and had not identified the issues we found during our inspection. The registered manager agreed and started to take action to address the shortfalls when we pointed these out to them.

We found two breaches of the Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to Safe care and treatment and Good governance. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We made a recommendation in relation to reviewing and updating support plans because some of these did not always contain up to date information about people’s needs.

Notwithstanding the above, there were other systems and processes in place to help protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and there were contingency plans in the event of staff absence. Employment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they were allowed to support people.

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated whenever people's needs changed. People and relatives told us they were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support, and felt valued.

The risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. People were supported to manage their own safety and remain as independent as they could be. The provider had processes in place for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Act. The provider had liaised with the local authority when people required Court of Protection decisions with regard to being deprived of their liberty in the receipt of care and treatment. At the time of our inspection, nobody was being deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

People were protected by the provider’s arrangements in relation to the prevention and control of infection. The provider had a procedure regarding infection control and the staff had specific training in this area.

The provider ensured people's nutritional needs were met. Some of the people using the service were supported to shop for ingredients and cooked their own food.

People were supported by staff who were sufficiently trained, supervised and appraised.

People’s healthcare needs were met and staff supported them to attend medical appointments where support was required.

People's care plans were comprehensive and detailed people’s individual needs. They were personalised to reflect people’s wishes and what was important to them.

A range of activities were arranged that met people’s individual interests and people were consulted about what they wanted to do.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity, compassion and respect. Support plans were clear and comprehensive and included people's individual needs, detailed what was important to them, how they made decisions and how they wanted their care to be provided.

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff supporting people in a way that took into account their diversity, values and human rights. People confirmed they were supported to make decisions about their activities.

Information about how to make a complaint was available to people and their families, and they felt confident that any complaint would be addressed by the management.

People, relatives and staff told us that the registered manager was supportive, approachable and hands on. Staff were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

The provider had some systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and where issues were identified, these were addressed promptly.