Archived: Rainbow Family Centre

Updated 18 January 2018

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 is 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.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 28 November 2017. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice of the inspection because we needed to ensure the manager would be available to speak with us.

Before the inspection took place we looked at information we held about the service including registration information and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

On this occasion we did not ask the provider to send us a provider information return (PIR). This is information we ask providers to send us at least once annually to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. However, we offered the provider the opportunity to share information with us that they felt was relevant, during and following the inspection process.

One inspector visited the provider’s office location on 28 November 2017 to review people’s care records, the provider’s policies and procedures, meeting minutes and communication records. We reviewed care records for five people using the service and looked at four staff records in relation to recruitment, training and supervision. We spoke with the manager of the service and looked at records relating to the quality monitoring of the service.

Following the site inspection, an expert by experience spoke with four family members. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. We also contacted two members of support staff to gain feedback about their roles and the management of the service.

Updated 18 January 2018

This comprehensive inspection was announced and took place on 28 November 2017. We gave the service 48 hours' notice of the inspection because we needed to ensure the manager would be available to speak with us.

Whilst we have taken into account any wider social care and support provided to people in their homes and in the community, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out this inspection only in relation to the regulated activity of ‘personal care’.

The Rainbow Family Centre is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support to children and young adults with learning disabilities and autism in their own homes and out in the local community. At the time of our inspection 27 people were using the service, of whom eight were receiving support with their personal care needs.

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.

We rated the service Requires Improvement at our previous focused inspection in June 2017. We reported improvements had been made and the service was meeting the legal requirements we checked. We indicated that we would require a longer term track record of consistent good practice before we were able to revise ratings for the service. At this inspection we found the provider had continued to make and sustain improvements to the service and rated the service Good.

The manager had submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager for the 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.

People's needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. This ensured that any care and support provided would meet people’s needs appropriately.

People's care and support plans were developed with them and their relatives (where appropriate). People and their family members were provided with a service user guide and asked to sign a contract of agreement before a package of care was delivered. Care plans were updated on a regular basis or when there was a change to their care needs.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and staff established caring relationships with the people they were supporting.

Staff were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 legislation and sought people's consent before providing any care and support. Staff ensured people's privacy and dignity was protected and promoted.

Staff completed safeguarding training to enable them to recognise the signs and symptoms of abuse. Safeguarding training was refreshed on a regular basis in line with the provider’s policies and procedures.

There were risk management plans in place to protect and promote people's safety. Staff understood how to protect people from harm and were confident that any concerns would be reported and investigated by the manager.

Where staff supported people with their medicines this was done in accordance with best practice guidelines. If required, staff supported people to access healthcare services and other organisations.

People were supported to access the food and drink of their choice where this formed part of the agreed care and support plan.

There were safe recruitment practices in place and these were being followed to ensure staff employed were suitable for their roles. Staffing numbers were sufficient to keep people safe and double up care was in place for people who required this.

Staff received an induction when they first commenced working at the service. Staff were supported by the manager and had regular one to one supervision and annual appraisals.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and relatives said they would feel comfortable making a complaint if the need arose.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and investigated. Action had been taken to reduce the risks of any repeat incidents.

The provider had systems in place to monitor staff visits and evaluate staff performance. Quality service audits took place so that the provider was able to drive forward improvements that benefited people using the service, relatives and staff members.