You are here

Hamelin Trust Community Support Service Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 2 May 2018

During a routine inspection

Hamelin Trust Community Support Service is focused on supporting families to continue caring for their relatives at home. It primarily provides personal care to young adults and children living at homes with their families. The support usually involves supporting people to access the local community. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people with learning or physical disabilities using this part of the service.

There is also a smaller project attached to the service, called U Matter 2, which provides holistic support to families caring for relatives at home. The service is mainly provided in the person’s home and involves supporting the whole family. At the time of our inspection there were approximately seven people receiving personal care through this project. There were other people receiving support through U Matter 2 who did not require personal care, for example who received advice from the service. We did not inspect the support provided to these people.

At our last inspection we rated the service as good overall. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

At our last inspection we found that although people received good care, checks on the quality of the service were not working effectively and so we rated well-led as requires improvement. At this inspection we found the checks had improved, though the timetable for internal audits did sometimes slip. However, senior staff supervised the service closely on a daily basis so concerns were picked up promptly. There was now an external consultant who carried out independent checks and highlighted concerns and areas of development. Any actions from checks and audits were dealt with openly and effectively.

The manager promoted a positive culture where people and their families were central to the service. People and their families were encouraged to provide input and feedback into the service and their views or concerns were listened to fully. Support was flexibly tailored around individual needs and people achieved good outcomes. People took part in a wide array of stimulating activities of their choice.

Staff managed risk well at the service and developed practical solutions to ensure people were safe. There were enough safely recruited staff to provide a flexible and responsive service. Staff had the necessary skills to administer medicine safely and prevent the spread of infection.

Staff were highly motivated and well supported. They received training and guidance to enable them to support people in line with their needs. Staff worked well with families and other professionals to meet people’s nutritional and health needs.

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. Guidance to staff promoted people’s right to choice. However, care plans did not always distinguish between the different legal responsibilities when caring for children, young adults and adults.

Staff provided caring support and developed positive relationships with people and families. People were supported by a small and consistent staff team who knew them exceptionally well. Support to family carers was a key role and staff communicated well with them. Staff were skilled at communicating with people and finding out what their views were about their care.

The U Matter 2 project had been developed in response to demand from the local community and provided responsive and caring support. The development of the service reflected the innovative culture in the service. The flexi

Inspection carried out on 21 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 21 October 2015 and was announced.

Hamelin Trust provides personal care to young adults and children living in their own homes, predominantly supporting them to access the local community. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people using the service. The majority of people using the service had a learning disability.

A registered manager was in post at 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 were safe and staff knew what actions to take to protect them from abuse. Risk assessments were carried out and measures put in place to manage and minimise any risk identified. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who were safely recruited. There were systems in place to support people to take their prescribed medicines safely.

People received support from staff that were regularly supervised and had the skills to meet people’s complex and varied needs. Staff took account of people’s health and nutritional needs when providing support.

People’s independence was promoted by staff and they were involved in decisions about their care. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect by staff who knew them well and their rights were upheld.

The registered manager supported staff to provide care that was personalised and centred on the individual. Changes in the service people received were not always planned and communicated effectively. The provider had a range of systems to monitor the quality of the service being delivered and drive improvement, however a number of these had only recently been developed. There had therefore not been sufficient time to ensure improvements were sustainable.