Archived: Your Life Your Support

The service had not yet been inspected at these premises. Your Life Your Support is a small domiciliary care agency and at the time of the inspection there were 57 people receiving support, 25 of whom were in receipt of support with personal care. It is registered to provide a service to people with learning and/or physical disabilities to enable them to remain in their own homes, as well as access community resources.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risk assessments were in place and methods used to minimise risks to individuals were incorporated within support plans.

There was an appropriate safeguarding policy in place and staff were aware of the procedure for recording and reporting any issues. Accidents and incidents protocols were followed by staff and responded to and documented as required.

The recruitment procedure was robust and the induction programme and initial training was thorough. A significant amount of training was continually offered to staff throughout their employment. Medication training had been undertaken by all staff and was supported by a thorough and comprehensive medicines policy and procedure.

Staff supervisions took place on a regular basis and staff were also supported by informal chats and weekly catch ups.

Support plans included a range of health and personal information and were person-centred. We saw that communication with other health and social care agencies was effective. People’s backgrounds, interests, likes and dislikes were documented. The service was flexible and responsive to people’s changing needs and health issues.

The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and we saw evidence of decision making in individuals’ best interests.

People we spoke with were very happy with the service and the individual workers who supported them. We saw that people were fully involved with all aspects of care planning and reviews of support.

The service used various methods of communication with people who used the service. We saw that people were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible.

There was an appropriate complaints policy in place, but there had been no recent complaints. The service had received a number of compliments.

The management team helped ensure continual development, improvement and high standards of service delivery. People who used the service, their relatives and staff members all felt the management team were approachable and accessible.

A number of audits and checks were carried out to help ensure the quality of the service.

We spoke with two relatives of people who used the service and were told that their relatives were treated with respect and courtesy and their privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

One person told us 'The carers are just like friends, I am really pleased with the care'. Another said 'They are flexible if I need extra time. My X likes them, she smiles when she sees them.' Both relatives told us that they felt the manager was very approachable and would listen and try to help if they had any concerns or issues about the care.

The company had appropriate policies in place and was seen to follow the correct safeguarding procedures. We spoke with two staff members who demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding issues and were confident that they would be able to follow the guidance correctly.

We saw that there was a robust recruitment process and that the company's induction was thorough. A comprehensive programme of training was undertaken annually by all staff.

The company had a complaints policy in place and had systems to continually monitor and assess the quality of the service.

People we spoke with told us that discussions had taken place about their individual care needs during an initial assessment meeting.

People who used the service told us, 'I really like X (the carer), we go to places'. One relative told us, 'They (the staff) are wonderful', another said, 'Communication is very good, we are always kept informed, I have no complaints'. Another person told us 'That in the main the service was very good but sometimes I have noticed that some staff chat on their own mobiles when they should be working'.

We saw that the provider kept detailed care records, which had been regularly reviewed and any changes to the plan of care were documented. Staff files showed that the recruitment procedures were robust and that all the relevant checks had been completed prior to people commencing work.