Southside Partnership Domiciliary Care Agency

Updated 13 April 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 is 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.

This inspection took place on 23, 24 and 25 January 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because it is a supported living scheme and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. At our previous inspection on 14 and 22 October 2015 we found the provider was meeting regulations in relation to the outcomes we inspected.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors. One inspector visited a supported living scheme on 23 January 2018. Two inspectors visited two supported living schemes on 24 January 2018 to speak to people in their homes, and two inspectors visited the provider's head office on 25 January 2018. Before we visited the service we checked the information that we held about it, including notifications sent to us informing us of significant events that occurred at the service. The provider also submitted a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with three people using the service and six relatives. People using the service have significant communication needs so more were not able to tell us of their experiences. We spoke with 11 staff including the registered manager, a quality improvement partner, family support manager, service managers and care workers. We also observed interaction between staff and people using the service. We looked at five care records, four staff files and other records related to the management of the service including training records, audits and quality assurance records.

Updated 13 April 2018

Southside Partnership Domiciliary Care Agency provides care and support to people living in 16 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. People using the service lived in flats and houses in multiple occupation (HMO). HMO are properties where at least three people in more than one household share toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities. Five supported living settings are in Lambeth, one in Westminster and ten in Bromley. At the time of the inspection 104 people were using the service in 22 schemes, however only 59 were receiving personal care in 16 schemes. Southside Partnership is part of a larger organisation providing social care services called Certitude.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection, the service was rated Outstanding.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

The provider was involved in a number of initiatives that demonstrated a strong person centred culture within the organisation. People using the service were involved across the services as quality checkers visiting services and speaking to their peers about their experiences and how services could be improved. The provider took part in initiatives to support people using the service to connect with their local communities.

The provider ensured there was a focus on building and maintaining open and honest relationships with people and their families. Formal listening events were held as a platform for family and friends of people to share their views and discuss issues with a range of operational staff.

Certitude had a clear vision which was supported by a five year strategy, yearly organisation business plans and individual service continuous improvement plans which enabled the vision to be promoted throughout the organisation and down to each individual service.

The provider worked in partnership with organisations to build seamless experiences for people using the service and explored new ways of connecting people with their communities based on good practice.

Governance was well-embedded into the running of the service. There was a robust framework of accountability to monitor performance and risk across all the schemes. All services were subject to rigorous systems of quality assurance. This included a member of the quality team completing an audit alongside a service manager from a different service. A system was in place which allowed the management team to have a greater insight to how services were performing. At the end of each month, each service would complete a self-assessment tool including a care records tracker, medication, and food hygiene. The senior leadership and board members also completed visits looking at people support, staff, home and environment.

Relatives of people using the service were satisfied with the service and complimented the service and staff about how well their family members were looked after. We observed interactions between staff and people using the service in the individual services we visited to be friendly. Relatives said they felt their family members were cared for and they had no concerns about their safety. Care workers were familiar with safeguarding procedures and training records showed that safeguarding training was delivered to staff.

Care plans involved people, their families and external professionals, where required. People had person centred plans in place and communication profiles providing information about how people communicated. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Risks to people were assessed and reviewed on a regular basis. People’s care files included risk management plans that provided information about actions needed to keep people safe and how risks could be mitigated. Checks and records which demonstrated that each scheme was safe were in place. There were systems in place to help promote infection control.

People were supported to take their medicines by trained care workers. Medicine Administration Record (MAR) charts were signed and up to date and medicines were stored safely and securely. Medicines audits took place on a regular basis.

People received support in accessing healthcare services at the time that they needed them. People’s care files included hospital passports and health action plans detailing people’s conditions and details of their healthcare professionals. People had health action plans and health passports in place. Records of correspondence and appointments with health professionals were seen.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Care workers were aware of people’s needs and provided the appropriate level of support. They were also familiar with people’s preferences and likes and dislikes in relation to their food.

There were enough staff employed to meet the individual needs of people. New staff completed an induction which included an introduction into the organisation's vision and values. They also completed training within the first three months of employment based on The Care Certificate. Staff training compliance was monitored by local and senior management on a monthly basis and checked by service managers during supervision meetings.