We carried out a review of the data available to us about Young Prospects on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Young Prospects, you can give feedback on this service.
29a Shrewsbury Road is a care home and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people with learning or physical disabilities. The provider had modified the service and was now providing accommodation and personal care to a maximum of seven people. The upstairs area of the property was now a supported living service not regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
The service provided a ‘short breaks’ service, where people went for a period of respite care. At the time of the inspection, two people living there were receiving personal care. There were other people living within the service, however the level of care provided did not fall within the regulation of the CQC.
We have instructed the registered manager to ensure they and the provider take appropriate steps to ensure the service is correctly registered in relation to the number of people they support and the service location address.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found:
One person receiving personal care at the service wished to communicate and engage with us. They were positive about their experience at the service.
We identified that some improvements were needed in relation to the management of medicines to ensure people were fully protected. We have made a recommendation in the report about this. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and processes and felt comfortable raising concerns.
There were enough staff available to support people safely and recruitment processes were robust. Risks to people were identified and guidance was in place for staff to keep people safe. Staff we spoke with understood people’s risks.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where required, decision specific capacity assessments were completed.
Staff were competent and received an on-going training package from the provider. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and records evidenced supervision and performance appraisal was completed with staff.
Support plans were detailed and reviewed when required. People’s healthcare needs were identified and met. There was evidence the service worked with other healthcare professionals within people’s care plans.
People were supported by caring staff who worked towards promoting their dignity, privacy and independence. Records and information were maintained confidentially.
The person we spoke with and staff commented positively on the registered manager and the leadership of the service. There were internal and provider level governance systems in place to monitor the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was Good (published February 2017)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive. We will inspect in line with our inspection programme or sooner if required.
At the time of our inspection three people were living at the service. The inspection took place on 13 and 16 January 2017 and was announced. On 13 January 2017 we telephoned relatives to ask for their feedback. On 16 January 2017 we visited the service to talk to people and the staff.
The service did not have a registered manager. 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 current manager was in the process of applying to be registered.
People and their relatives were positive about the service. One relative said, “This really does come to the rescue of people with special needs. It’s really ideal for what we need.”
This is a short breaks service that aims to give people the confidence, support and skills to live independently. People or their relatives can book themselves into the service to receive short term care and support. It responded to people’s support needs, and was able to clearly demonstrate the positive impact it had on people’s lives. Support plans were based around the individual preferences of people as well as their medical needs. People were involved in how their support was planned and given. Support plans gave a good level of detail for staff to reference if they needed to know what support was required. People received the care and support as detailed in their care plans, and the provider and staff team went out of their way to support people to improve their lives.
Throughout our inspection staff helped people, by being available to talk, and spent time discussing issues people had in their lives. The service had a homely feel and reflected the interests and lives of the people who stayed here. There was positive feedback about the service and caring nature of staff from all the people who lived here, and their relatives.
People were safe at 29 Shrewsbury Road. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs and preferences of the people that lived there. Staff understood their duty should they suspect abuse was taking place, including the agencies that needed to be notified, such as the local authority safeguarding team or the police. Risks of harm to people had been identified and clear plans and guidelines were in place to minimise these risks, without restricting people’s freedom. People were involved in these decisions because staff took the time to explain to them in a way they could understand.
The staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Good interactions were seen throughout the day of our inspection, such as staff talking with people and showing interest in what people were doing. People looked relaxed and happy with the staff.
The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the service. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training, tailored to the needs of the people they supported. Staff felt very supported by the manager and the senior management within Active Prospects.
People were supported to manage their own medicines where possible. Staff managed the medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines.
In the event of an emergency people would be protected because there were clear procedures in place to evacuate the building.
If people did not have the capacity to understand or consent to a decision the staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Appropriate assessments of people’s ability to make decisions for themselves had been completed. Staff asked people for their permission before they provided support.
Where people’s liberty may need to be restricted to keep them safe, the staff understood the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected. No one had, or needed a DoLS at the time of our inspection.
People were supported to choose healthy options for what they ate and drank and how they led their lives. Staff respected people’s choice to make decisions for themselves.
People knew how to make a complaint. The policy was in an easy to read format to help people and relatives know how to make a complaint if they wished. Complaints received since our last inspection had been dealt with in an appropriate manner. Staff knew how to respond to a complaint should one be received.
Quality assurance records were kept up to date to show that the provider had checked on important aspects of the management of the service. The manager had ensured that accurate records relating to the care and treatment of people and the overall management of the service were maintained. Records for checks on health and safety, infection control, and internal medicines audits were all up to date. Accident and incident records were analysed and used to improve the care provided to people. The senior management team from the provider regularly visited the service to give people and staff an opportunity to talk to them, and to ensure a good standard of care was being provided to people.
People were living in a caring, safe, clean service, and had effective and responsive support from the staff. The manager led the service well and worked with the provider and staff team to give a good quality of life to people. A relative said, “Overall this service is brilliant. It has set us free to do other things when our family member is here.”
Our observations of staff practice showed that people were receiving effective, safe and appropriate care, which was designed to meet their specific needs. We saw that people felt comfortable in approaching staff and asking for assistance. People were relaxed and content in their surroundings. Staff engaged positively with people using the service to encourage them to communicate their consent, wishes and choices
We spoke with people who used the service and their commented were, 'I like living here.', 'staff are good to me and take me swimming.', 'I like the food here.', 'I feel safe here and I like to go to the pub with staff.'
Relatives that we spoke with told us. 'My relative is happy here and is a different person since he moved to this place.', 'Staff are always kind and welcoming.' 'Staff know my relative very well.', 'Every year we attend a review meeting to discuss my relative's care.'
We found that the provider had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service they provided and we found that people were generally satisfied with the care and treatment they received.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.
Staff worked in person centred ways. For example, asking people about their dreams, goals and aspirations. We saw that support plans were person centred and reflected each person's needs and preferences.
Staff were respectful at all times during our visit. For example, knocking on doors before entering people's rooms. Staff were knowledgeable about people's support needs and treated people respectfully.
People we spoke with told us that they were happy with their care and felt included in their support plans. One person told us they 'love it here'.
Complaints and concerns were listened to and acted upon.
People and their families were encouraged to be involved in how the service was run and how their support plans were developed. One relative we spoke with told us they were "very happy with the service" and "couldn't speak highly enough of the staff".
People told us they liked living at the service because it was a friendly place to live and they enjoyed having their own room which they could choose how to decorate and furnish. Some people do not use verbal forms of communication. Observation showed that some people used single words or gestures and other people had their own style of communicating, for example, the use of body language, facial expressions or other forms of behaviour, staff recognised these sings and responded to them.
A person who lives at the service told us that they were supported to choose what they wanted to wear and buy their own clothes. A person told us how they are encourage to be independent by being involved in undertaking some shopping and going out independently.
Social care professionals told us that they were satisfied with the standards of support and care people had received. Carers consistently told us how their relative enjoyed living at the service as they always seemed happy and had active social lives. They told us how welcome they are made to feel when they visit by being offered to stay for meals and provided with drinks.
A person told us that they had not been well during the night prior to our visit and how staff had comforted them and had helped to make them feel better. People told us about a range of activities they undertake, either at the service or within the local community.
People living at the service were observed to be content and at ease with staff. Staff's approach towards people was respectful, supportive and accommodating. People described staff as 'nice' 'kind' and 'helpful'. A person using the service was observed clearly deriving much comfort from the gentle affection being shown to them by staff, to help ease their anxiety and help orientate them. A social care professional said that they have found the staff they come into contact with helpful and knowledgeable.