Vision Homes Association - 2 Ouzel Drive

At the last inspection, the service was rated good.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Staff and manager were confident in supporting people with medicines.

Staff had regular opportunities to update their skills and professional development. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were motivated and worked well as a team, with effective support from one another and from the manager.

Care records contained clear information covering all aspects of people's individualised care and support and staff had a caring approach to working with the people who used the service.

There was a clear management structure and all staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

There was an open and transparent culture in which staff felt valued and able to approach the manager.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The service had been inspected previously in November 2013 and found compliant in all the legal requirements inspected at that time.

Vision Homes Association offers personal care and support to people who have one or more of a variety of conditions. These can include but are not limited to, sensory impairment, learning disability and acquired brain injury. Number 2 Ouzel Drive is staffed by a permanent team of support workers who provide 24 hour care and support to four people. The service is housed in a large bungalow divided into four self-contained one bedroom flats, a communal area with kitchenette and a staff office. People have separate access from their flats to a garden area.

There is a requirement for a registered manager to be in place 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.

At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager due to the resignation of the previous registered manager in March 2016. However, the Commission had been notified about this and we were satisfied appropriate interim measures were in place and actions had been taken to appoint a new registered manager within a timely manner.

People told us they felt safe in the service. Staff told us they felt people were safe and they had not seen anything of concern whilst working at the service. Safeguarding procedures were in place which were understood by the staff we spoke with.

Records and procedures for the safe administration of medicines were in place and being followed.

Care files were comprehensive and person centred, containing detailed information which demonstrated the service had fully assessed people’s needs and provided the required care and support. People's health, safety and wellbeing were regularly assessed and robust risk assessments put in place to minimise any identified risks. Staff understood how to provide appropriate care that met people's needs.

There were sufficient staff deployed to ensure people were supported to be as safe and independent as possible, with opportunities to partake in a variety of activities both during the day and in the evenings. People were encouraged to go out into the community as much as possible to engage in meaningful activities.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff employed by the service were of suitable character to support vulnerable people.

Staff had access to a wide range of appropriate training which was up to date. Annual staff appraisals were in place. However staff supervisions and spot checks had not been carried out since early 2016. This demonstrated a lack of clear governance, although the deputy manager had an action plan in place to reintroduce these.

Staff told us although morale had improved and they received good support from the deputy manager, they would benefit from more contact and support from the provider.

People were appropriately supported to eat and drink and maintain a healthy lifestyle wherever possible. People had access to a wide range of services to ensure their healthcare needs were met.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service with a range of regular audits undertaken. However, although staff told us the service had not received any complaints, there was no information displayed about making a complaint or whistleblowing information.

The provider held annual review meetings with people that used the service and their relatives to discuss any concerns or changes required to their care and support.

In addition to the manager we spoke with five support staff employed by the agency. The staff told us they enjoyed working at Ouzel Drive and always provided care and support in line with their agreed support plan. Staff also told us there were clear lines of communication and accountability within the agency and they were supported through a planned programme of supervision and training.

People also told us they were involved in their support plans and reviews. This was important to make sure people were always involved in the decision making about their care.

We spoke with three of the staff and the deputy manager. Staff told us "I've had a lot of training which is regularly updated. The support we get is very good, I think we are a good team' And 'The manager listens to us and we meet regularly as a team to have our say.'

The care records were detailed and up to date, and people using the service confirmed they felt their views were taken into account. We found however in some cases decisions had been made without reference to people making their own choices. We discussed this with the deputy manager who said these would now be reviewed with the individual.