You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

This was an announced inspection which took place on10 March 2017. We had previously carried out an inspection in December 2015 when we found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014; these related to the unsafe handling of medicines, a lack of staff training and a lack of robust quality assurance processes in the service.

During this inspection we found the required improvements had been made and the provider was now meeting these regulations.

MacIntyre Care is a national organisation providing personal care and support to adults with learning disabilities and mental health needs. At the time of our inspection the MacIntyre Bury and Rochdale Supported Living service was supporting one person who had been assessed as requiring assistance with personal care.

The provider had a registered manager in place as required by the conditions of their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 person who used the service told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them; their relative confirmed they had no concerns about the safety of the service provided. The person was supported by a staff team who had been safely recruited. Sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff were always available to meet the person’s assessed needs. All staff were required to complete training in ‘Positive Interventions’ before they supported the person who used the service in order to ensure they were able to deal appropriately with any behaviour which might challenge others.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. They were able to tell us of the correct action to take in order to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse. They told us they considered they would be fully supported by the registered manager should they report any concerns. Policies and procedures were also available for staff to refer to should they need to report any concerns. An annual assessment was completed to check the understanding of staff regarding safeguarding procedures.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safe administration of medicines. Staff had received training in the safe handling of medicines. Arrangements were in place to regularly assess the competence of staff to handle medicines safely.

Care records included risk assessments and risk management plans. These provided information and guidance about how to ensure the person who used the service and staff were protected from identified risks.

Regular checks were completed to ensure the safety of the property occupied by the person who used the service.

Staff received the induction, training and supervision they required to help ensure they were able to deliver effective care. A training matrix was in place and regularly updated by the provider; this recorded when staff needed to complete refresher training in order to ensure their skills and knowledge were up to date.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and appropriate action had been taken to safeguard the rights of the person who used the service in view of the restrictions in place. Staff told us they would support the person who used the service to make their own choices and decisions wherever possible.

The person who used the service received the support they needed to attend health appointments. Staff encouraged the person to make healthy nutritional choices as much as possible.

Staff were seen to be kind, caring and respectful towards the person they supported. They had a good knowledge of the person’s needs and preferences and how best to communicate and engage with them.

Staff suppor

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was safe.

People who used the service told us they always felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew the correct action to take if they witnessed or suspected abuse.

Recruitment processes were sufficiently robust to protect people who used the service from the risk of unsuitable staff. Staff told us they worked flexibly in order to try and ensure the person who used the service was always supported by staff they knew.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safe administration of medicine. Staff undertook regular checks to help ensure the property of the person who used the service was safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had received the induction, training and supervision they required to support them to deliver effective and personalised care.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the need to support people to make their own decisions and choices wherever possible.

People received the support they needed to access healthcare services. Staff encouraged people to make healthy choices regarding the food they purchased and ate.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were observed to be kind and caring towards the person they supported.

Staff had a good understanding of the needs of the person they supported and told us they would always promote the person’s independence as much as possible.

People’s confidential information was stored securely.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People who used the service and their relatives had been involved in developing and reviewing their support plans.

There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise any concerns.

Staff supported people to attend activities to promote their health and well-being.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 April 2017

The service was well-led.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality

Commission. Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service and felt valued by the provider.

The provider had a number of ways of engaging with and seeking feedback from staff.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.