We carried out a review of the data available to us about Interactive Development Support Limited 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 Interactive Development Support Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Interactive Development Support is a supported living service. At the time of the inspection, staff provided support over a 24-hour period to 31 people living in their own homes. This included adults and children. People who used the service had a range of conditions affecting their physical and mental health including learning disabilities and autism.
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.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt very safe with support from attentive staff who knew them well. People’s care needs were thoroughly assessed, and measures were in place to reduce the risks they faced.
People were well cared for by trained and competent staff, who were supported by the registered manager to provide a reliable, high-quality and person-centred service. Staff were respectful towards people and their families and people’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Independence was encouraged, and people were involved in decision making.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There was a good working relationship between staff and external professionals to ensure people received any additional support they needed, to experience positive outcomes. The service was flexible to meet people's changing needs and their wishes.
There had been a small number of complaints made about the service, which had been responded to promptly, to resolve matters. People and relatives were very pleased with the service.
The registered manager had implemented best practice into the service. There was good governance of the service with a strong quality assurance process in place.
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 25 April 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 Interactive Development Support until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in December 2014 we had rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and met each of the fundamental standards we inspected.
We found that the service had established processes to protect people from abuse and respond to any safeguarding concerns. Measures were put in place to reduce identified risks and make sure people received safe care and support.
A robust recruitment was followed to check the suitability of new staff. Sufficient staff were employed to support people and provide them with continuity of care. The staff team was well trained and supervised to support their skills in meeting people’s needs.
People were appropriately supported in maintaining their health and in taking their prescribed medicines. Staff assisted people with their dietary requirements and, where able, to be involved in planning and preparing meals.
Staff had developed good relationships with people, were caring in their approach and treated people with respect. People and their representatives were involved in decisions about their care and given information about the service in ways they could understand.
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.
Care plans were tailored to the individual’s needs, preferences and the outcomes they wished to achieve. People were supported to engage in activities they enjoyed and to spend time in their local and wider communities.
The service regularly sought feedback from people and their families about their experiences. Any complaints received were responded to and thoroughly investigated.
The management provided leadership and promoted an open, inclusive culture. The quality and safety of the service was monitored to ensure standards were maintained and improved.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We undertook an announced inspection of ID Support Limited on 8, 15 and 16 December 2014. We last inspected ID Support Limited in June 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations we inspected.
ID Support Limited provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes, or in a shared tenancy, for people living in Newcastle upon Tyne and Gateshead. The service is aimed primarily for people with a learning or physical disability. This allows people to live their lives in their own homes and within their own communities.
The service had a registered manager who had been in post since December 2010. 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 using the service told us they were well cared for and felt safe with the staff who provided their support. One person told us, “I like the people who come here. I feel safe with them and there is always someone here to help me.” Health and social care professionals we spoke with told us they thought the support staff were well trained and felt people were supported appropriately and safely. One health professional told us, “I’m very happy with the staff. They respond appropriately to people’s needs and I’ve noticed in reviews that their reports are accurate. I have no concerns about the underreporting of safety concerns.” Another health professional commented, “Staff are acutely aware of the risks involved in looking after people with mobility problems when taking them out in the community. I have noticed that staff adapt the way they provide care to ensure people are safe when out and about.”
We found staff were recruited appropriately and they had the skills and knowledge to safely care for people. Risks were assessed and managed well, with care plans and risk assessments providing clear information and guidance to staff. Staff understood what abuse was and knew how to report abuse if required. We also noted the service had a whistleblowing policy. This meant staff could report any risks or concerns about practice in confidence with the provider.
People told us and we saw staffing levels were appropriate and we noted that there were sufficient staff to provide a good level of support to people.
People were assisted with their medicines in the right way. The provider had a detailed policy in relation to medicines, so staff had access to information and were clear about what was good practice. Staff competency regarding medicines handling was subject to regular supervisory observation checks and medicines training was refreshed annually.
The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). MCA assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been undertaken by the relevant supervisory body where there were doubts about a person’s capacity to make decisions.
Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs. People were also supported to make sure they had enough to eat and drink.
Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Staff told us they were able to build caring relationships with people by supporting them to take part in activities important to them. One person told us, “Every week I go to a disco and staff go with me, its loads of fun.” Another person told us how much they liked going out shopping with staff. Where they were able, people told us they were able to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. People told us they felt involved in their own care and staff listened to their requests and responded appropriately. One person commented, “I can ask for anything I want. I love special coffees and the staff got me a great coffee machine that they help me to use.” Staff had a good understanding of the importance of maintaining people dignity and treating them with respect.
Information and contact details of advocacy services was included the in provider’s service users guide. This meant advocacy information was easily accessible to people and their relatives. Advocacy ensures that people, especially vulnerable people, have their views and wishes considered when decisions are being made about their lives.
Care support plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. Risk assessments were also in place to effectively manage identified risks. Care support plans were up to date and had been regularly reviewed. People were supported to access their communities and pursue leisure interests and educational opportunities.
The provider had a written complaints policy and procedure. This detailed the process that should be followed in the event of a complaint and indicated that complaints should be documented, investigated and responded to within a set timescale. An easy to read format with picture symbols which explained how a person could raise concerns or complain and who could help, was also available in care support plans kept at people’s homes. People we spoke with about making complaints told us they were aware of how they would make a complaint and were satisfied that any concerns would be taken seriously and dealt with promptly.
Systems were in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service and to gather the views of people. This included whether they were happy with the quality of the services provided. The provider supported care workers and managers through effective inductions, training and supervision and with regular meetings to share best practices. Staff had the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to meet the needs of the people they supported.
People had their needs assessed and these assessments were used to develop personalised care and support plans. People said they were happy with the care they received and the staff team. One person commented, "Very amazing staff."
People told us they knew how to complain and felt their concerns would be taken seriously. None of the people we spoke with raised any concerns about their care and support.
People, and their relatives, told us they were happy with their staff team. One relative commented that, 'ID are brilliant and the staff are lovely.' We found the provider had effective systems to recruit and select staff to work with vulnerable people.
The provider had systems in place for the safe administration of medicines. We found that only trained staff were responsible for administering medication. The provider had systems in place to identify and deal with any medication errors.
People told us they were supported to be independent and to maintain and develop their independent living skills. One person told us, "Staff don't do everything for us, they help us to do things."
We reviewed five care records and saw that people's preferences and care needs had been well documented. We spoke with three members of staff. Staff were knowledgeable about the care needs of the people who used the service and what they should do to support them.
We found that staff received appropriate professional development and there was an effective system in place to make sure staff training was up to date so that staff could care for people safely and to an appropriate standard.
We found that the provider had made suitable arrangements to protect vulnerable people from the risk of abuse and that there was an effective system in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.