Background to this inspection
Updated
11 February 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place on 2 November 2015 and was announced. A second day of the inspection took place on 9 November 2015 in order to gather additional information. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.
The inspection was undertaken by two adult social care inspectors.
It should be noted that the provider was not requested to complete a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about Creative Support –Halton. We also looked at all the information which the Care Quality Commission already held on the provider. This included previous inspections and any information the provider had to notify us about. We invited the local authority to provide us with any information they held about Creative Support –Halton. We took any information provided to us into account.
During the site visit we spoke with the registered manager of Creative Support Halton, a service director and another registered manager who provided assistance to the inspection team. We contacted one person using the service and two relatives by telephone. We also undertook home visits to three properties by invitation and spoke with six people who used the service and six staff. We encouraged people using the service to communicate with us using their preferred methods of communication.
We looked at a range of records including four care plans belonging to people who used the service. This process is called pathway tracking and enables us to judge how well the service understand and plan to meet people’s care needs and manage any risks to people’s health and well-being. Examples of other records viewed included; policies and procedures; four staff files; minutes of meetings; complaint and safeguarding logs; rotas and / or visit schedules; staff training and audit documentation.
Updated
11 February 2016
This inspection was announced and took place on the 2 November 2015. A second day of the inspection took place on 9 November 2015 in order to gather additional information.
The agency was previously inspected in June 2014 when it was found to be meeting all the regulatory requirements which were inspected at that time.
Creative Support (Halton Service) is a domiciliary care service that is part of Creative Support Ltd (The Provider). Creative Support is a 'Not for Profit' organisation.
The Halton service is coordinated from business premises in Museum Street, Warrington. The domiciliary care service in Halton currently provides personal care and support for up to nine adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities or mental health care support needs who live within the Halton district.
At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager at Creative Support (Halton Service). 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 registered manager of Creative Support (Halton Service) was present during the two days of our inspection and engaged positively in the inspection process, together with other members of the office management team and staff.
People spoken with told us that they felt the service provided was safe, effective and caring and confirmed they had confidence in the standard of care and support provided by staff. There were systems in place to protect people from suspicion or evidence of abuse and to keep them safe from potential and actual risks. This included written guidance for staff and safeguarding training. Staff were aware of the provider's procedures for reporting any safeguarding concerns and how to whistle blow.
The provided had developed systems to ensure that comprehensive assessments of need had been undertaken to identify people’s personal care and support needs. Furthermore, care and / or support plans had been developed to promote person centred care and to keep people safe. People using the service and / or their representatives were involved in the planning of their care and had been asked for their views periodically via questionnaires and consultation events.
People using the service and / or their relatives told us that they received a reliable service. There were contingency arrangements in place to cover staff absences and robust procedures were followed for staff recruitment.
People received appropriate support to manage medicines. Staff had access to corporate and localised medication policies and procedures and received medicines training and an assessment of competency prior to administering medication.
Care staff were provided with appropriate induction from the provider’s training department which was linked to national induction standards. Staff also had access to mandatory and ongoing training to meet people’s needs. Records indicated that staff received regular supervisions and had attended team meetings throughout the year to received support and guidance.
Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and were aware of the need to consider whether people had capacity. People told us they were provided with information about their care and asked for their consent.
People using the service or their representatives spoken with told us that they understood how to raise a concern or complaint and were confident that any complaints would be responded to in an appropriate and timely manner.
People told us they found the management team approachable and there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.