We carried out a review of the data available to us about Southside Partnership Domiciliary Care Agency 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 Southside Partnership Domiciliary Care Agency, you can give feedback on this service.
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.
This inspection took place on 14 and 22 October 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. At our previous inspection on 8 November 2013 we found the provider was meeting regulations in relation to the outcomes we inspected.
Southside Partnership Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care for people in supported living accommodation. They have a number of supported living schemes across Bromley and Lambeth. However, not all of the people receive personal care. Our inspection was focused on the people that received personal care.
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.
People using the service told us that staff looked after them and treated them well. We found staff were familiar with safeguarding procedures and had been given safeguarding training.
Risk assessments were carried out which helped to ensure that people were able to take part in daily activities in a safe manner. Risk assessments included a risk management plan which identified the level of risk and contained an in-depth management plan. Staff explained how they encouraged positive risk taking with the necessary measures put in place to ensure people were able to have some independence.
People received their medicines safely and received ongoing health care support. Guidelines were in place to ensure people received their medicines correctly and staff completed medicine records when they administered medicines. People had health action plans and hospital passports in place which had been reviewed recently. There was evidence that specialist professional support was sought for more complex needs such as speech and language therapists and physiotherapists.
Staff members went through robust recruitment procedures. They were required to spend some time with people using the service which was closely observed by a manager, who assessed how they interacted with people. There was a comprehensive induction based on the care certificate and a six month probation for new staff. The providers training manager was responsible developing the Care Certificate induction modules for managers to support staff with and training of new and existing staff. Staff received ongoing support and told us they were satisfied with the training opportunities they were given.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and its application. Staff were aware of the importance of asking people for consent and the need to have formal best interests meetings in relation to decisions where people did not have the capacity to consent. The provider had taken into consideration where people had some restrictions placed on them and had submitted applications to the authorising body in respect of these people.
Care records were person centred and developed with the help of an in-house intensive support team. They helped to ensure behaviour support plans were in place and specialist advice was available to support staff in areas such as intensive interaction and positive behaviour support.
Quality assurance was central to monitoring the way service was run. A newly recruited head of quality had put in place a number of ways in which quality was monitored and measured across the organisation. A quality framework had been developed, bringing together a range of quality outcomes from external organisations and implementing them within the service and seeing what areas needed to be improved. Feedback was sought from people in a manner that was accessible to them.
We spoke to an area manager and arranged visits to three of the houses where people who used the service were supported to live. These visits were on 7 and 8 November 2013. We spoke to 13 care workers, 10 people who used the service and their relatives.
We looked at seven care plans and daily records.
People who used the service told us "it's good to live here", "staff help me to go out". A family member told us, 'they (their relative) are very well looked after, staff understand him' and 'the care they get gives us peace of mind'. Another family member said, 'I have never felt happier about the care given'.
In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not managing the regulatory activities at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.
They said the quality of care they received from trained and competent staff was good, delivered appropriately and they felt safe with the service they received. One person told us "I'm really pleased". Someone else said "the staff are excellent".
They did not comment on the support staff received from the service or the quality assurance system in place. They did tell us that there was frequent contact with the agency to identify that they were satisfied with the service they were getting and the staff who delivered it.