We carried out a review of the data available to us about Freedom Support Ltd 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 Freedom Support Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Freedom Support is a domiciliary care service which is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
Relatives told us people were safe and staff treated their relatives well. People’s known risks were assessed and managed to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to report any concerns relating to people's safety. Staff had good knowledge of people’s preference and used these to support people safely.
Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when needed.
Staff received an induction and ongoing training and felt supported by the registered manager. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access healthcare services when required.
People were supported by a caring and consistent staff team who supported them to maintain their independence and dignity.
People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Staff used care plans to ensure people received care in line with their preferences. People and relatives knew how to raise a concern if needed.
The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the service and to ensure lessons were learnt when things went wrong.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (Published 10 June 2017).
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 reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service provides personal care to people who live in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 35 people receiving the regulated activity of personal care and two people who received a supported living service.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
At the last inspection we found that the service did not always act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and quality assurance systems were not always effective at driving continuous improvement. These constituted a breach of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in the areas of concern and the provider was no longer in breach of any Regulations of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
People were protected from abuse and the risk of abuse as staff and the registered manager followed the correct procedures and reported potential abuse to the local safeguarding authority for further investigation.
Risks to people were assessed and minimised through the effective use of risk assessment and staff knowledge of people and their risks.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe. Staff had been employed using safe recruitment procedures to ensure they were of good character.
People and their relatives told us they received medicines when they needed them. Staff had been trained to administer people's medicines safely.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is designed to protect people who cannot make decisions for themselves or lack the mental capacity to do so. The provider worked within the guidelines of the MCA to ensure that people consented to their care, treatment and support, or were supported to consent with their representatives if they lacked capacity.
People's care plans were personalised and met people's individual needs and preferences. The provider had a complaints procedure which they followed and people and their relatives knew how to use it.
Staff were supported to fulfil their role effectively. There was a regular programme of training that was relevant to the needs of people, which was kept up to date.
People were supported to eat and drink to maintain a healthy lifestyle dependent on their specific needs and choices.
When people became unwell staff knew what to do and responded and sought the appropriate support.
People told us that staff were kind and caring and their privacy and dignity was respected.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.
The service provides personal care to people who live in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 26 people receiving the regulated activity of personal care including five people who received a supported living service.
There was no registered manager in post though the manager had submitted their application to register with us. 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 service did not always act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that people were supported to make their own decisions or that decisions were made in their best interest when they were unable to do so. This meant that people's legal and human rights may not always be upheld.
Quality assurance systems were not always effective to ensure that issues with quality were identified and acted upon in order to drive continuous improvement.
These issues resulted in breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People felt safe and staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe where abuse may be suspected.
People's risks were assessed. Clear and specific risk assessments and management plans were in place which staff were aware of and followed to ensure people were safely supported.
There were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people's assessed needs and safe recruitment practices had been followed. We found that people received support with their medicines when required.
Staff received training and supervision which ensured they had the knowledge and skills required to meet people's needs. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts and staff encouraged people to make choices about their eating and drinking.
People were supported to access health professionals and referrals for advice were sought by staff, which ensured people's health and wellbeing was maintained.
People received care that was caring and compassionate and they were enabled to make choices about their care. People's dignity was maintained when they received support from staff.
People were involved in the planning and review of their care, which was planned and carried out in a way that met their preferences. Staff knew people well and their care plans contained detailed information about the way they preferred to be supported.
People told us they knew how to complain and the provider had an effective system in place to investigate and respond to complaints.
Some staff did not feel supported by the management at the service though there were plans in place to address this.
The service worked in partnership with key agencies to help ensure that people received holistic support.
We met and spoke with the providers, the registered manager and the service manager. We spoke with three care staff, two people who used the service and two relatives of people who used the service. We emailed one person who used the service to gain their insight in receiving care and support from the agency. We spoke with a social worker about their experience of using the service.
During the inspection we looked at three care records and two staff files. We looked at how equipment was used by the staff and the service's complaints procedure.
The agency had been established for two years and currently supported 32 people.
People we spoke with were all satisfied with the care and support they had received. One person told us: "They're all absolutely brilliant. I couldn't be more happy".
One relative told us, "They are the best care staff I have dealt with. They involve us with the plan of care and the future plans". Another person we spoke with told us, "The staff are punctual, kind and friendly. They are respectful at all times and very adaptable to our needs".
We visited the office and looked at care records, staff recruitment and training records and the quality assurance system. We saw that care records were personalised and those seen were signed by staff and the person receiving the care or their representative, along with risk assessments and contracts.
They agency had received no complaints and no safeguarding referrals had been made. We saw that the agency work closely with other health professionals.
The staff we spoke with told us they were well supported in the community and received the appropriate training for the needs of the people they looked after. One staff member told us, "I enjoy my work and feel that the induction process was good and the continued support from the providers is appreciated'.