Archived: HF Trust - Gloucestershire DCA

HF Trust Gloucestershire DCA provides personal care and support to people with a learning disability and/or mental health needs to live in their own homes either on their own or sharing with others in supported living services. A supported living service is one where people receive care and support to enable them to live independently. People have tenancy agreements with housing providers and receive their care and support from HF Trust Gloucestershire DCA. At the time of our inspection 12 people were receiving support with their personal care.

The service was last inspected on 29 July 2014. At the previous inspection the service was rated as Good and there were no breaches of regulation. .

There was a registered manager in post 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service was caring and people and their relatives spoke extremely positively about the outstanding care they received. We observed staff supporting people in a caring and patient way. Staff knew the people they supported well and were able to describe what they liked to do and how they wanted to be supported. People were supported sensitively with an emphasis on promoting their rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence. People were supported to undertake meaningful activities, which reflected their interests.

The service was extremely responsive to people's needs. Support plans were person centred to provide consistent, high quality care and support. People using the service and their relatives were able to raise concerns and were listened to. Management and care staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and wishes and consistently went the extra mile to communicate and support them effectively. Where it was clear people’s needs had changed, the registered manager and care staff worked with the person and their family to check if the package of care needed changing to accommodate their additional care needs. Staff said the service was very responsive to their feedback.

The service was safe. Risk assessments were implemented and reflected the current level of risk to people. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment.

The service was not always responsible for people's accommodation; however we found they had ensured people's homes were safe and comfortable, through liaison with landlords and other relevant agencies. The Care Quality Commission's role in these settings was to focus on the regulated activity of personal care and had no regulatory responsibility to inspect the accommodation. We saw that the provider had environmental risk assessments and a log of all maintenance records that had, or were due to be completed.

People were receiving effective care and support. Staff received training which was relevant to their role. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff told us there was an open culture and the environment was an enjoyable place to work. Staff were extremely passionate about their job roles and felt integral to the process of providing effective care to people.

Management and care staff had a good understanding of people's needs and wishes and communicated effectively to support them. Where it was clear people's needs had changed, the registered manager worked with the person, their family and health and social care professionals to check if the support needed changing to accommodate any additional care needs or reduced support. Staff said the service was very responsive to feedback.

The service was well led. Quality checks were occurring regularly and identified actions to improve the service. Staff, relatives and other professionals spoke positively about the registered manager.

People's views were sought through care records, reviews, meetings and surveys. Systems were in place to regularly review and update records. People were actively involved in striving to improve the service and support provided.

The care records that we reviewed were comprehensive and contained detailed information about people's preferences, needs and goals. Staff identified that some records contained too many out of date documents and needed thinning out.

We saw staff following support plans and their interactions with people showed an understanding of their needs. People we spoke with were positive about the support they received. Comments included 'staff know what upsets me and help me to learn to look after myself' and 'I love living here ' I like to make my own decisions'.

Staff training was now being effectively monitored using a summary table and managed using supervision meetings. Some staff needed training but people were unlikely to be put at risk at this time. Staff were now having regular supervision meetings as per the company policy.

Medication administration was well managed and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible with their medication. Records were accurate and staff had received training.

Quality systems were well established to ensure that people and staff were listened to. Everyone we spoke with felt they had been listened to in the past and would be listened to in the future. The provider learned from complaints, incidents and survey feedback.

People told us that they understood the choices available to them and were involved in decisions about their care. We saw that people were supported to share their views about their care.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as there was a robust policy in place that was followed by staff. Staff had received appropriate training regarding abuse and were confident in raising concerns. People told us that they could speak with someone if they were unhappy about the service or felt scared in any way.

Staff told us that some training they received was very good but they would appreciate more training focused on supported living. Staff were not receiving adequate professional development. One member of staff told us that they had not had supervision for over three months. The manager confirmed that appraisals were not being completed.

People's views on the services were sought through internal quality inspections and quality assurance processes. Actions raised were completed to ensure improvement to the service. The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service.