Archived: Southside Partnership - 67 Medora Road

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

There were four people using the service at the time of our inspection. We were unable to speak to people in detail as they were out doing activities and attending appointments. From brief conversations with people they were happy with the service and appreciated the support provided to them by the staff.

Is the service safe?

There were appropriate staffing levels to support people using the service.

Staff were knowledgeable in safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures and were able to recognise signs of potential abuse. The service responded to allegations of abuse appropriately and reported their concerns to the local safeguarding team. The service worked with the local authority, the person who used the service and the person's care coordinator (the person responsible for their mental health) to put management plans in place to support a person at risk of harm.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people will be safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

The staff had the skills and experience required to meet the needs of people who used the service. The team had access to training courses to update their knowledge and become familiar with any changes in policies or procedures.

The service undertook assessments with the person using the service to identify their support needs. The 'mental health recovery star' was used to identify a person's goals and the targets they wished to achieve whilst they were at the service. The staff worked with the person who used the service to review the progress they were making and what further support was required to meet their identified goals.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff speaking to people who used the service politely and courteously. Staff were respectful of people's privacy.

People who used the service were involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff supported people and advised them but allowed the person who used the service to make the final decision. Staff told us, 'nothing happens without their [people who used the service] input.'

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

The service was using the 'my choice worker' initiative as part of the individual service funding project to provide people with an individualised service. This allowed people who used the service to choose which staff member they wished to support them and what activities they wanted to undertake. For example, people were being supported to go swimming or to play football.

The service liaised with other health and social care professionals to meet the needs of people who used the service. The service had recently had a dietician come to the service to talk to people about healthy eating and support them to buy the required ingredients to make healthy meals.

Staff supported people to maintain their cultural and religious needs. This included supporting people to pray and they had dedicated cooking equipment to prepare and cook halal meals.

Is the service well-led?

The service was working to the strengths of individual staff members and using the skills and knowledge of staff members to provide the required service to meet people's needs. Staff reported they felt well involved and supported in their roles. They reported that the manager of the service was accessible and approachable. They had regular supervision sessions and were able to meet with the manager as needed if they had any questions or concerns.

There were processes to monitor the quality of the service and to improve the quality of service delivery. The team reflected on incidents and complaints that occurred to identify any learning points and adjust their service delivery accordingly.

People using the service were asked to consent to their care and support and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. One person using the service told us, 'we work together', when talking about how their support plans were developed.

The care records we reviewed included individualised care and support plans addressing people's mental health, physical health, social, financial and personal support needs. Staff used the mental health recovery star to measure the progress people had made with their goals outlined in their care records.

Staff worked together with other providers to ensure people's health and social care needs were met. Staff told us they worked closely with people's care co-ordinators to ensure both services were kept up to date with people's progress.

There were appropriate arrangements for the administration of medication and people using the service were clear what medication they were required to take and when.

There was suitable accommodation to maintain the safety of people using the service. At the time of our inspection there was no outstanding maintenance work.