You are here

Archived: Reach Supported Living Limited

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


Inspection carried out on 19 August 2014

During a routine inspection

Care and support was being provided to 35 people in nine locations at the time of our inspection. Some people lived in houses on their own, and some people lived with others in supported living houses. A total of 30 members of staff were employed.

There was no registered manager currently shown on our records. They had recently left the service. A new manager was in place, and was in the process of submitting an application to become the registered manager, to the Care Quality Commission. Senior members of staff, known as team managers were responsible for the day to day management of a number of locations, and reported directly to the new manager.

We visited the registered office, one house that provided support for three people and one house that provided support for seven people. We met with the new manager, two team managers, five care support workers and six people who used the service. We reviewed four care plans, four staff files and other relevant records. We reviewed contract monitoring visit reports from the county council.

A single inspector carried out the inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Is the service safe?

Staff told us they had received training about safeguarding vulnerable people. They were able to describe different types of abuse, and how they would recognise if a person was being abused. They told us they would report concerns to senior staff or they may also report directly to the local authority if needed. Contact telephone numbers were available and accessible to staff.

We spoke with people who used the service. They told us they felt safe. They appeared comfortable in their homes, and told us the name of the team manager they would speak with if they had any concerns.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with staff who told us they had completed an induction programme. They told us that this included training that was mandatory, such as fire safety, introduction to the policies and procedures, health and safety and medication management. We saw from the training records that on-going training was provided for staff.

We found that one to one meetings were inconsistently completed in one location.

We spoke with staff who all told us they felt well supported in that they could pick up the phone at any time and speak to their line manager for advice and guidance or to report an issue if needed.

We saw involvement from other health professionals. We saw the local authority had completed a review in May 2014. We saw involvement from the Community Learning Disability Team (CLDT), and this was recorded in the care records.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with staff who told us how important they believed it was to show respect for people they were supporting. They gave us examples of how they did demonstrated respect. We saw they had good interactions with the people they were supporting.

We saw an entry in three care records that did not demonstrate people's equality, diversity and human rights were respected. The new manager told us they would take action to address this issue.

Is the service responsive?

People had their needs assessed on a regular basis. There were systems in place to monitor the service on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis. We saw that some of these checks were still to be implemented in a timely manner.

We saw there was a detailed complaints policy in place. We were told, although there had been no complaints in recent months, that people were supported to provide feedback about their concerns. Most of the people we spoke with were able to express their views. They gave us positive feedback about the quality of the service they received.

Is the service well-led?

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. We found that some, but not all of these systems were being used. In one location, aspects of the service were monitored informally. Staff told us they were supported, but there was a lack of written evidence to confirm that monitoring had taken place in accordance with the requirements of the providers' policies and procedures.

We saw that accidents, incidents and complaints were monitored. A safeguarding file was maintained, and was up to date.

Inspection carried out on 2, 8, 9, 16 October 2013

During a routine inspection

People who received a service were involved in planning and reviewing the care and support they received. People told us they were happy with the service and the quality of support provided.

People told us that the staff were reliable and arrived on time. We were told the staff treated them in a respectful and friendly manner. People told us they felt felt safe receiving a service from Reach.

We saw that the service had effective and appropriate sytems in place for recruiting staff and completing the required pre-employment checks.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and audit the quality of service provided.

Inspection carried out on 30 November and 6, 11 December 2012

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us they were treated with respect by the support staff and were happy with the service they received. We were told that staff had the required skills to meet their needs. We were told that staff arrived on time and were aware of the support and care that was required.

The service had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people who used the service and their relatives felt confident about raising concerns or issues.

The service had an effective recruitment policy in place that ensured that all new staff were correctly interviewed and the appropriate checks completed before they commenced their employment.

Inspection carried out on 6 April and 27 May 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that the staff arrived on time and that they always knew which staff to expect. All the people we spoke to were supported by a single staff member at a time and all said they thought they received sufficient input. People told us that the staff had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs and that only staff known to them provided their support.

Staff said that people received the staffing hours and input that the funding provided for. Staff told us that there were on call arrangements in place if staff were delayed for any reason, and that cover was also arranged through their manager if people were off sick. Staff told us they thought the systems were effective and that support was always provided when it was scheduled.