CM Supported Living Services

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

The provider's support for staff by training, supervision, spot checks and competency checks enabled and empowered them to deliver safe, good quality care and support to people. The provider had expanded their induction programme to accommodate new workers who were moving to the UK and getting used to new cultural, professional and social expectations.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Feedback from staff was consistently positive about the training, supervision and other support they received. One staff member described their induction training as "amazing". Staff told us the training prepared them well to deliver safe care that met people's needs and respected their dignity and rights. Staff felt supported by regular supervision meetings which enable them to track their own progress and have a two-way conversation with managers and leaders in the service. The registered manager had made significant changes to their induction training to meet the needs of staff who were new to the UK. There had been discussions with the local care association with a view to sharing this best practice with other providers in the area. The changes included covering cultural differences, and expectations relating to professional standards, whistle-blowing and safeguarding. There were weekly team meetings where colleagues presented and led discussions about their own experience, and outside speakers presented on topics such as confidentiality and how adult social care is regulated. The provider had engaged a well-being officer so staff making the transition to the UK had a source of support outside their management line.

People's feedback about the service was consistently good. People had good relationships with their care worker teams, and some singled out individual care workers for praise. People described their care workers as "wonderful", and "kind, gentle, cheerful and helpful at all times".

The provider had processes in place to monitor staff training, supervision and competency checks. Records showed these were all completed in a timely fashion.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.