Archived: Milford Del Support Agency Limited

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We spoke with four people who used the service, three family members, five members of staff and the manager. During this inspection we looked at outcomes relating to people's care and welfare, safety and suitability of the premises, support provided to staff, the home's quality assurance processes and their records management. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People were cared for by staff who were knowledgeable about their needs and had the skills to provide the support people required.

We looked at four care plans which included the necessary information to inform staff as to the specific care people required. They also included risk assessments associated with specific elements of people's care.

The provider has taken steps to provide care in an environment that is suitably designed and adequately maintained.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. The service had an up to date policy and procedure in relation to the Mental Capacity Act. Relevant staff had received training to enable them to understand the implications of the Mental Capacity Act with regard to their provision of care within people's homes.

The manager ensured there were enough staff working to meet people's care needs.

Is the service effective?

The care plans we looked at were personalised to reflect people's individual needs and their likes and dislikes. The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they were receiving and their needs had been met. One person said 'The carers are nice; with their help I have my independence'.

It was clear from speaking with the staff that they knew the people they were supporting well and had a good understanding of their care and support needs.

Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills necessary to care for people. Staff told us about the care they were providing for specific people which matched information in the person's care plan.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People said they had no concerns over how they were treated and they felt their privacy and dignity were respected.

One of the family members we spoke with told us staff understood their relative's needs. They added 'We are happy with the level of care given; we don't have to worry about [their relative]'. The records we looked at showed staff took account of people's individual wishes and these were respected, when providing care.

Is the service responsive?

We saw there was an effective complaints policy in place, which was also contained within the service user's handbook.

The manager told us they had not received any formal complaints during the previous 12 months. They were able to explain what action they would take in respect of a complaint if one was received.

We saw that where incidents occurred lessons learnt were incorporated into case studies which were used as part of refresher training for staff.

Is the service well-led?

There was a clear management structure. There were also procedures in place to monitor the quality of service. The manager told us care plans were reviewed every six months, and other records, such as personnel files, daily record sheets and medication administration records were audited on an informal basis.

An annual questionnaire was sent out to people who used the service, their friends and families seeking their views on the service provided. We looked at the responses and saw the feedback was predominantly positive with 90% of people stating they were satisfied with the service provided.

Staff had regular spot checks and attended regular supervision meetings. There was a staff meeting structure in place, where staff could raise any issues or concerns.

We saw the agency had a safeguarding policy and staff were able to explain the actions they would take if they had any concerns. The people we spoke with told us they had no concerns regarding any safeguarding issues. One person told us 'I feel totally safe with them'.

We found there were procedures in place to ensure appropriate checks were completed before staff started working. We saw the agency provided a supportive environment for staff to deliver care to people using the service. We looked at care plans; records of care provided and staff records. These contained all the relevant information and were stored securely. We spoke with three members of staff who told us they had completed a comprehensive induction programme and had also received yearly update training.

We saw there was an effective quality assurance system in place and people who use the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment they received.

The agency, which had achieved the investors in people award, provided a supportive environment for staff to deliver care to people using the agency. We telephoned four staff. They confirmed that that they had completed a comprehensive induction programme and had also received yearly update training. Staff said they felt supported by their manager and were given the time and skills to carry out their role. Staff were aware of people's rights to refuse care and the actions they would take if people did not want care as planned.

We spoke with two health professionals from the learning disability team who were positive about the agency. We looked at care plans, records of care provided and staff records. These contained all relevant required information and were stored securely.