• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Castle Supported Living Limited

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

3 Castlegate, Clitheroe, BB7 1AZ (01200) 429990

Provided and run by:
Castle Supported Living Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Castle Supported Living 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 Castle Supported Living Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

10 December 2018

During a routine inspection

Castle Supported Living is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own home. The service specialised in providing flexible support to people with learning disabilities living in the Ribble Valley. At the time of the inspection 29 people were using the service. People had varying levels of need and support.

The care service continued to develop in line with good practice guidelines. The management and staff had redefined the values that underpin the service and everyone promoted the values. These values included choices, action, support, teamwork, local and everyone. The values enabled people with learning disabilities and autism using the service to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The types of services offered from this location include supporting people living in their own homes in single occupancy or shared housing. 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 inspection visit took place on 10 December and 17 December 2018 and was announced. The registered manager was given 48 hours' notice of the inspection, to ensure that she or other responsible people would be available to assist with the inspection visit.

At our last inspection, we rated the service Outstanding. On this inspection, we found the service had remained Outstanding. We found the evidence continued to support the rating of Outstanding and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. Castle Supported Living is a registered charity and the registered manager whilst responsible for the day to day running of the service is accountable to a board of directors.

Staff demonstrated a genuine person centred culture. The registered manager had a robust and values based recruitment process in place. This helped to ensure that all staff recruited truly believed that people who have a learning disability should have the same opportunities and access to community resources as other citizens.

People who use the service were involved in the recruitment process either informally or being on the interview panel. All applicants are shown an video which has been made by people using the service. This provides an insight into what the service provides and helps to assess the prospective employees values.

A thorough and person-centred assessment process was in place resulting in detailed support plans. Everyone said their care needs were met and the service was very responsive. We saw very positive outcomes had been experienced by people.

Staff were carefully matched to people who use the service to ensure compatibility. Time and effort had been invested into matching the support worker with the person using the service. Staff displayed empathy and worked with people and their family members to understand how best to support them. People were put at the centre of everything the service provided. This helped ensure people’s needs, wishes and hopes were understood and supported people to live fulfilled lives. The attitude and knowledge of staff and management clearly had a positive impact on people and their families. We saw evidence of good relationships that had developed between people using the service and staff members.

There was a strong commitment to continuous learning. A 12 month training plan was in place and staff went through an extensive induction programme. Families were invited to take part in training sessions. This was provided free of charge to assist with their understanding and to support their relative to have continuity of care as well as maximise the opportunities for people. People using the service had a core staff team to help provide them with continuity of care and develop trusting relationships.

Family members, staff and professionals described the service as being exceptionally well led.

Staff felt well supported and valued by the management team. They were confident in the management team's abilities and felt that their views would be listened to and actions taken where required.

The service went above and beyond to support families and people when in crisis. There was a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve the service. The registered manager and the management team were fully engaged with the running of the service. The registered manager and staff team continued to find innovative ways to improve the service and remained focused and enthusiastic in the way they provided care to the people they supported. This included the development of talking books. This creative idea was personal to the individual and helped them put their own words into a book format when they found it difficult to talk to someone face to face. The book was illustrated with the person’s own pictures. The book was illustrated with the persons own pictures and recorded words. One book clearly provided instructions on how the person wanted their medication to be administered. Staff had an excellent appreciation of people's individual needs and constantly looked for inventive ways they provided care and interacted with people.

People received safe support with their medications that were well managed by all staff. Staff's competency to manage people's medicine was regularly reviewed.

The registered manager was proactive in supporting effective joint working with professionals and remained up to date with best practice guidance.

The service had strong links within the local community and there was overwhelming evidence of people attending local and national events of the awards and accolades that had been awarded to individuals and to the service. In addition a ‘Pop Up Club’ met weekly in a local community resource. Anyone could attend these workshops to talk about what was happening in the service, express their views and opinions, work on topics of interest, of just enjoy a chat and a brew.

People, their families, professionals and staff were engaged in the running of the service and encouraged to regularly feedback their views on the service delivery, and share ideas and suggestions on how the service could be improved. Quality assurance questionnaires were used at every opportunity. We saw many creative ways of asking people for their views and opinions. All feedback forms were designed in an easy read and pictorial format in order that everyone could comment. Staff were skilled in helping people to express their views and communicated with them in ways they could understand. Feedback gathered was reviewed to support the registered manager and staff to ensure improvements could be made.

Staff were clear about their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to recognise and report potential abuse. Staff carried out their roles and responsibilities effectively. Staff had an excellent understanding of managing risks and supported people to reach their full potential through consistent, personalised care.

Risks to people were robustly explored and recorded. The service supported people to have a full and meaningful life by using innovative ways to take positive risks and be actively involved in managing their own risks. People were supported by staff that were highly skilled, and knowledgeable about the person they were supporting.

Staff understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and 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.

A quality manager was a key part of the management team. There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

People knew who to complain to if they were not satisfied with their care and we were told that appropriate action would be taken. People also had information about support from an external advocate should this be required.

Technology was used proactively to both support people's safety and communication needs.

17 February 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection of Castle Supported Living on 18 and 19 February 2016. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of our intention to carry out the inspection. This was because the location is a community based service and we needed to be sure that someone would be present in the office.

Castle Supported Living is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own home. The service specialised in providing flexible support to people with learning disabilities living in the Ribble Valley. At the time of the inspection 29 people were using the service. People had varying levels of need and support.

The service was managed by a registered manager. 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 last inspected the service on 8 January 2014 and found it was meeting all legal requirements.

During this inspection, we found the service provided outstanding care and support to people and was very responsive to their needs, wishes and preferences. All people, relatives and staff spoken with were extremely positive about Castle Supported Living. Everyone had contributed to and was fully committed to the values of the service. The overarching value was “People are at the centre of everything we do.” Throughout the inspection, we saw numerous ways of how this value was implemented and embedded into the ethos of the service.

Staff were very positive about working for Castle Supported Living and understood and practised its values. One of the strongest values was how people drove all aspects of care and had ownership for the direction of the service. All people, their relatives, staff and the directors were members of the quality group which met four times a year at an external venue. This enabled people to forward their ideas for improvement. People had painted an ideas tree on the wall in the office so they could see how their ideas were progressing and what action was being taken. People were involved in projects which were represented by the branches. One such project was the making of a video so people could explain to potential new staff and people considering the using the service what was good about Castle Supported Living and what was important to them.

All people felt very safe using the service. We saw they were actively encouraged and supported to remain as independent as possible. Detailed and thorough risk assessments had been carried out with people to ensure their safety, whilst enabling them to maintain their independence and lead an interesting and fulfilled life. The assessments included photographs of actual equipment to help people and staff understand the risks involved in specific activities. Staff were creative in the way they communicated with people and had an thorough understanding of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff knew about safeguarding procedures and we saw concerns had been reported promptly and appropriately to the local authority. The recruitment process was robust and people were given the opportunity to actively choose their own staff through the use of a comprehensive matching process. The registered manager ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people’s individual needs and wishes were fully met. Staffing arrangements were flexible and people could accrue staff time to enable a member of staff to accompany them on specific events. For instance one person was due to attend a conference and slight adjustments had been made in order to build up staffing hours. This meant the person could be fully supported throughout the event.

There were safe arrangements in place to support people with their medication.

The registered manager and staff were clear about their responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were dedicated in their approach to supporting people to make informed decisions about their care.

Staff felt confident in their roles because they were well trained and told us the management team was always available for support and advice. We found the staff were motivated and passionate about using the knowledge and skills gained from training to ensure the best possible outcomes for people. We noted a person using the service had developed and presented a training course for staff on person centred thinking. This meant staff had the opportunity to learn about people’s views and expectations of the planning processes. All staff and people spoken with felt highly valued and respected and told us their suggestions and ideas were listened to and acted upon.

People were supported by staff who placed importance on maintaining a healthy diet. We saw staff closely monitored people’s dietary needs as appropriate and sought prompt professional advice in line with people’s needs. At the time of the inspection, some people and members of staff were working on a healthy eating and drinking policy as part of an involvement group. This had resulted in one person using the service being elected as the regional representative for staying healthy for Self Advocacy in Lancashire.

During the inspection it was evident the staff had an excellent rapport with the people who used the service and we were able to observe the positive interactions that took place. Staff spoke warmly and compassionately about the people they supported. We observed the staff were caring, positive, encouraging and attentive when communicating and supporting people with daily life tasks, care and support. All people spoken with were very complimentary about the kind and sensitive approach taken by staff.

People and where appropriate their relatives were fully involved in identifying their needs and how they liked to be supported. People’s preferences were sought and respected throughout the whole planning process. We saw all people had a comprehensive person centred plan which they reviewed with staff support at regular intervals. People told us staff provided consistent personalised care and support. We noted care records were focused on empowering people to have control of their lives.

People were promoted to live full and active lives and were supported to go out and use local services and facilities. Activities were meaningful and reflected people’s interests and individual hobbies. Three people were members of Self Advocacy in Lancashire and were supported to attend local, regional and national conferences and meetings. People had also had the opportunity to discuss their concerns about funding and the proposed changes to local buses with their MP. People regularly contributed articles to the quarterly newsletter about their activities and achievements. People showed us many examples of this during the inspection.

People, their relatives and staff described the management and leadership of the service as exceptional. The registered manager was passionate about involving people in all aspects of the service and used creative ways to enable people to express their views and comments. She had also signed up to a number of accredited schemes and carried out benchmark exercises with people and members of staff in order to identify how the service could be improved. We noted there was a business plan in place which highlighted 33 areas of work for 2016. This demonstrated how the registered manager continually strove to improve all aspects of the service.

There was an effective and thorough quality assurance system in place. We found regular quality audits and checks were completed to ensure improvements were continually identified and the necessary action was taken to implement any changes. People using the service, their relatives and all

8 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People were satisfied with the service provided, one person told us, 'It's very good, the staff are always helpful and have time to talk'. People told us the staff were respectful of their rights to privacy and dignity and they were supported to maintain and build their independence skills.

People's care and support was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had detailed individual support plans which were underpinned by a series of risk assessments. People told us they discussed their needs with staff and had been fully involved in the development and review of their plans.

New staff were thoroughly checked before they started working for the service. This meant the provider ensured staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

Staff were provided with appropriate training opportunities and received regular supervision. This meant staff had the right skills and knowledge to carry out their role effectively.

We found there were systems in place to monitor the quality and operation of the service. We saw evidence to demonstrate that people were consulted about their opinion of the service and their comments were used to shape future developments.

30 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People using the service told us they were satisfied with the way the agency delivered their care and support. One person told us, 'They are all very nice and they always make sure I'm OK'. People said they shared a good relationship with the staff who they described as 'friendly' and 'good'. People told us their rights to privacy and independence were upheld and respected.

People's care and support was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had detailed individual support plans which were underpinned by a series of risk assessments. People told us they discussed their needs with staff and had been fully involved in the review of their plans.

Staff confirmed they had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults and had access to appropriate policies and procedures.

Staff were provided with appropriate training opportunities and received regular supervision.

We found there were limited systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. People had not been given the opportunity to complete a satisfaction questionnaire and a written report had not been produced, to set out the outcomes of the quality monitoring systems and the agency's plans for the forthcoming year.

2 June 2011

During a routine inspection

People using the service told us they were satisfied with the support they received from Castle Supported Living, that they were being involved in planning their support and were enabled to make choices and decisions about matters which affected them. 'They always ask us what we want to do', said one person.

They said staff treated them well, that were enabled to develop independence skills and were being supported to try new experiences.

People said they were getting support with healthcare needs, with regular check ups being arranged. They all had written person centred plans which explained their needs and how their support should be provided. One person explained, 'Its all written down so everyone knows, then we have a review and we decide who is invited'

Everyone spoken with was okay with how they were supported with food choices, preparation and cooking.

People said they would speak up if they were not happy with things, 'I would tell one of the staff, I know them all well enough', said one person, 'I would see the manager to discuss any problems, but I have never needed to make a complaint', said another.

We were told by people using the service how they were involved in different ways, in choosing the staff that support them.