You are here

Archived: Sandwell Supported Living Smethwick

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 23 September 2014

During a routine inspection

We gave short notice of our inspection so that we were able to make a judgement about the service provided. At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care and support to four people who lived in their own homes. Due to the complex needs of the people being supported they were not able to give us their views of the service. To determine the standard of care provided and the satisfaction of people using the service we spoke with three relatives of people who used the service, three staff, the service manager and the assistant manager.

We considered all of the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes that we inspected. Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that people's individual needs had been assessed and that there were enough suitably trained staff to support and care for people.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

We saw that when people needed help and support taking their medicines systems were in place that ensured this was done safely.

The provider had arrangements in place to deal with out of hours emergencies. This meant that people would always be able to get the support they needed when the office was closed.

The manager regularly monitored the quality of the service to ensure it was safe.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and support plans were in place. We saw, and staff confirmed, that people’s support plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.

It was clear from speaking with staff they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and they knew them well. We saw people's support plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure their changing needs were planned for.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with three of the relatives of the people being supported by the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them and their family members. Feedback from people was positive. One relative told us, “We have had no problems at all. They (the staff) get to know people well.” Another relative said, “We are quite happy with the way (family member) is looked after. (Family member) gets out and about.” A third relative told us, “We have no reason to worry about (family member). They take her out and care for her.”

People who used the service and their relatives completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People's preferences and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's support plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that their changing needs were planned for.

Records we sampled and staff we spoke with confirmed that when there had been a need, referrals had been made to the appropriate health professionals.

Is the service well-led?

The service manager had been in post for a short time. It was clear from our discussions with the service manager and the assistant they were experienced and caring and provided good leadership based on how best to meet the needs of people in an individualised way.

There was a system in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to ensure it was safe. Records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly.

Inspection carried out on 19 February 2014

During a routine inspection

Sandwell Supported Living currently provides 24 hour personal care and support for eight people who live in their own homes. Care is provided for six of these people in shared homes.

During this inspection we spoke on the telephone with four relatives and a day centre coordinator. We spoke with the service manager, deputy manager and two staff at the agency office.

Relatives were complimentary about the care and support that people received. Relatives told us: “The place where X (person’s name) lives is lovely and clean, X always looks nice”. “I can’t fault the care, it is absolutely marvellous”.

We found that proper steps had been taken to ensure that individualised care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

The provider had systems of audit in place to enable them to monitor the quality of the service provided and ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment.

Staff had been recruited in an appropriate way. We found that thorough checks had been undertaken before staff started work at the home to ensure they were suitable to care for vulnerable people.

We found that any comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

Inspection carried out on 7 December 2012

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we spoke to a manger of the service. We held telephone interviews with six people who use the service and four care workers. People we spoke to had a varied ability to verbally communicate. Three people we spoke to were able to verbally communicate well while three other people we spoke to had limited ability to verbally communicate.

People that we spoke to said that they and their relatives were involved in agreeing and planning their care. One person we spoke to said, “My sister talked to the manager” about the care they received.

We found that people's needs were appropriately assessed and planned to ensure that care received was safe and appropriate. People told us they were happy with the care they received. One person told us, "They are doing excellent, I feel safe and sound”.

The service took steps to prevent abuse by ensuring that staff recognised the signs of abuse, understood safeguarding processes and whistle blowing procedures.

We saw that people’s health and welfare needs were met by competent staff that had appropriate supervision and training.

There was a system to monitor the quality of service people received through regular reviews and audits.