ESPA Agency

Updated 10 July 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 was planned to check 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 28 March 2018 and was unannounced on the first day. We visited the office location on 28 March 2018 to see the registered manager and reviewed the service’s systems and records. We made announced visits on 20 April 2018 and 16 May 2018 to the two supported living schemes run by the agency to speak with people and the staff who supported them. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service prior to our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. We contacted local authority commissioners.

During this inspection we carried out observations using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not communicate with us.

As part of the inspection we spoke with three people who were supported by ESPA, two team leaders, seven support workers, a personnel staff member from the office and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and checked to see how the schemes were managed. We looked at care plans for four people, the recruitment, training and induction records for four staff, staffing rosters, three medicines records, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service and the quality assurance audits that were completed.

Updated 10 July 2018

This was an unannounced inspection carried out over three days on 28 March, 20 April and 16 May 2018. On the first day the visit was unannounced as the provider did not know we would be visiting. On the other two days our visits were announced as we had made appointments to visit people in their homes. Five people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

This was the first rated inspection of the service since it was registered.

Education and Services for People with Autism (ESPA) Agency is registered to provide personal care to adults with an autism spectrum disorder or related condition. People are supported by staff to live individually in their own homes.

The service also provides care and support to people with an autism spectrum disorder in two supported living settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

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. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

We have made a recommendation that a supported living model of care is operated, rather than a residential model as some of the organisational business was carried out from people’s own homes.

Some people who used the agency had complex needs which meant they did not express their views about the service. During the time we spent with people we saw they appeared comfortable with staff. Other people told us they felt safe and staff were kind.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff had developed good relationships with people, were caring in their approach and treated people with respect. Care was provided with patience and kindness.

There were sufficient staff employed and people received a reliable and consistent service. Staff were well supported due to regular supervision, annual appraisals and a robust induction programme, which developed their understanding of people and their routines. Staff also received a wide range of specialised training to ensure they could support people safely and carry out their roles effectively.

People were supported to access health care professionals when required. They received varied and nutritious diets with involvement from other professionals to obtain advice for any specialist needs. They were supported to receive their medicines and manage their finances safely.

Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. There were enough staff available to provide individual care to people. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making approaches, when people were unable to make decisions themselves.

People were involved in decisions about their care. They 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. Information was made available in a format that helped people to understand if they did not read. This included a complaints procedure. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain.

People were supported to led fulfilled lives and to be part of the community. They had access to a range of activities and leisure pursuits. They had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with staff, people and/ or family members and their views were used to improve the service. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.