Archived: Platinum Living Devon Ltd

This was a follow up inspection to look at required improvements which had been made following our previous inspection in July 2014. The improvements were in relation to the way the service protected people from the risk of abuse, medicine management and quality assurance systems. Following the inspection the provider sent an action plan to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) detailing the improvements being made.

We found the provider had made improvements to the way the service protected people from the risk of abuse, they had put into place appropriate arrangements to manage people's medicines safely and they regularly assessed and monitored the quality of service that people received. These areas are now compliant.

On the day of our inspection there were four people living in their own homes being supported by Platinum Living Devon Ltd. The registered manager told us including themselves there were 15 workers employed to provide support at the service.

The summary is based on our findings during the inspection. We spoke with the registered manager who is also the provider and the line manager. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector who visited the provider's registered office to look at records.

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

We considered our inspection findings to answer these questions;

Is the service safe?

Is the service well led?

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because people were protected by robust systems to safeguard them against the risk of abuse. We saw the service had a safeguarding policy. The policy had been reviewed and updated and was detailed on the different types of abuse and gave support workers clear guidance on what to do in order to raise a safeguarding alert.

Support workers had undertaken a more comprehensive safe guarding training provided by a recognised trainer.

The provider had protected people against the risks associated with medicines because they had appropriate arrangements in place to manage their medicines safely.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well led because the provider had robust quality assurance systems in place to protect people supported by the service from inappropriate or unsafe care.

We saw the responses from the September 2014 client satisfaction survey. We saw all of the returned surveys were positive. For example one person had recorded, 'Yes to all, this is how care should be.'

The provider had sent out family surveys in July 2014 with the consent of the people using the service. We saw there were positive responses with one person recording, 'Extremely satisfied, x is happy so we are happy.'

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

On the day of our inspection there were four people living in their own homes being supported by Platinum Living Devon Ltd.

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, we spoke with three people supported by the service, the registered manager who is also the provider, line manager and seven support workers. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector over two days.

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

Is the service safe?

We had concerns the service was not safe because we found people were not protected by robust systems to safeguard them against the risk of abuse. We saw the service had a safeguarding policy. The policy was not detailed on the different types of abuse and did not give support workers clear guidance on what to do in order to raise a safeguarding alert. We could not see whether the policy had been regularly reviewed and updated.

Systems had been put in place during our inspection to make sure the registered manager and staff learnt from complaints, concerns and investigations carried out by the service. We saw the provider had implemented new documentation to record complaints formally and the actions taken and the outcome. A complaints procedure had been produced and made available to people supported by the service.

Recruitment practice at the service was thorough. Support workers recruitment files showed us the service had undertaken appropriate checks.

Is the service effective?

We found the service was effective because people's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved with their care plans and monthly reviews. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

The service managed the medication for the people they supported effectively.

Is the service caring?

We found the service was caring because people who were supported by the service told us they felt safe and were happy with the support they received. Comments included 'They are like angels', 'I am so pleased' and 'I am very happy with the care I receive'. This gave us evidence support workers knew people well.

People were supported by support workers who were understanding and sensitive to their needs. We saw people were treated kindly and respectfully.

Is the service responsive?

We know the service was responsive because people's needs for social activities were met. We saw people who were able had access to numerous external activities. People supported by the service told us 'It would be quicker to tell you what I don't do' and 'I am always busy'.

We observed on the second day of our inspection the service had implemented new quality assurance systems to seek the views of people supported by the service, support workers and families.

Is the service well-led?

We had concerns the service was not well led because the provider did not have robust quality assurance systems in place to protect people supported by the service from inappropriate or unsafe care. However people supported by the service and support workers told us they had confidence in the registered manager and line manager. They told us they had their concerns listened to and felt supported. Comments included 'They are a nice company to work for, I feel very supported' and 'Nothing is too much trouble they have been brilliant' and 'I feel confident if I had a concern they would deal with it'.

Support workers told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We saw there had not been regular staff meetings. However support workers told us they were kept informed by emails from the management.

We saw that the care and support given by the agency was person centred and met people's individual needs. We saw that both people were comfortable and shared a good rapport with the provider and care workers. The provider told us the focus was on 'providing an engaging and active social life'. For example, the four people receiving the service were all involved in hiring a van for a group trip abroad this summer. Staff comments included ''You couldn't wish for better. It's not like doing a job but spending quality time with people that we know well' and 'I love working here'.

Where risks were identified, plans were in place to minimise those risks such as specific medical needs, falls and manual handling.

The provider carried out regular informal quality assurance visits to check that people were happy with the service. They told us that 'it was important to keep the agency at a level where they knew what individual staff were doing and where' to ensure that people's needs were met how they wanted them to be.