You are here

Archived: Individual Care Services - 14 Marble Alley

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 10 December 2013

During a routine inspection

The four people we spoke with told us that staff supported them in the way they wanted to be supported. They told us that they made their own decisions about what to do and where to go. A relative we spoke with told us, “It’s just the job for us. We couldn’t ask for more.”

The manager assessed people’s needs and abilities and assessed risks to people’s health and wellbeing. The four care plans we looked at minimised the identified risks. People’s care plans were personalised according to their likes, dislikes and preferences. The manager regularly reviewed people’s care plans to make sure that changes to the plan were identified and agreed. People were involved in their care plan reviews.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to manage and administer people’s medicines. Support workers were trained in medicines administration and understood their role and responsibilities.

The manager checked that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people before they started working for the service. Staff were trained and had regular one-to-one meetings with their manager.

Support workers told us, “It’s about getting to know the person, building up relationships” and “I love my job. It’s about the person, getting to know and understand them.” People told us that staff were, “Kind, they always help” and “Really nice to me.” One person told us, “X (staff) is my best friend.”

We found that staff records and copies of people’s records were easy to read, up to date and kept securely in locked cabinets.

Inspection carried out on 1 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited this agency on 1 May 2012. We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using this service.

During our visit we spoke with the registered manager and the provider. In order to gain the views of people using the service and staff we spoke with two relatives, two people receiving a service and three staff via telephone.

Relatives and people using the service we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service being received. “The staff are absolutely marvellous I can’t fault them at all, I’ve never had a problem with ICS supporting X.”

People told us that they knew who their support staff were and that they felt comfortable with them. People told us that staff were always on time. “They’re never late, they always arrive on time.” People also told us that staff provided the support they required.

People told us that they were involved in their care and support planning, and that they participated in their reviews. Staff we spoke with told us that people had care plans in place and that they were reviewed on a formal basis annually. We were also told that if there were any changes needed to people’s care and support their plans would be reviewed. We saw records in people’s files in the office which confirmed this.

Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of how to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they were knowledgeable about protecting vulnerable adults from abuse. They were able to tell us what might indicate that a person was potentially being abused, and what they would do if they suspected that abuse might be taking place.

Staff told us that the training provided by the organisation was good. A relative we spoke with told us that they felt that the staff appeared well trained.

We saw that staff received supervision from their manager on a regular basis. Staff we spoke with confirmed that they were provided with both formal and informal supervision.

We were told that the service sought the views of the people that used it in order to monitor the quality of the service they were receiving. Two people we spoke with confirmed that they had participated in these surveys when requested.

We were told that spot check audits were undertaken in relation to the support provided to people with their finances, medication management and environment.

There were no records of these audits kept in the office. This meant that the service was unable to demonstrate that audits were undertaken to ensure that the quality and safety of the service was maintained.