Archived: Pashun Outreach Services Limited

Unit 11, Unity Works, 22 Sutherland Road, London, E17 6JW (020) 8531 0850

Provided and run by:
Pashun Outreach Services Limited

All Inspections

25 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People who used the service could not communicate effectively verbally. We observed care in one of the supported living homes. We spoke to staff and relatives via telephone. At our previous inspection we had been concerned by negative interactions we had observed between staff and people who use the service. On this visit we saw staff make positive interactions with people. Relatives we spoke to told us how people had progressed since starting to use the services provided by Pashun.

We found that staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and how to report any concerns. Staff told us there had been no safeguarding concerns relating to two of the supported living services. We had raised a safeguarding concern relating to a third supported living service following information received from a whistle blower. The relevant local authority had investigated and found no concerns.

We found that regular spot checks were done at the supported living sites, risk assessments were updated and health and safety checks were completed. The complaints policy was available to people and their relatives and we were told that there were no recent complaints.

Records relating to people who used the service were updated, stored securely and could be promptly located when required.

15 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We observed interactions between staff and four people who used the supported living service. We found that staff responded to people's needs in an appropriate manner most of the time. However, we observed staff responding in a threatening manner towards a person who used the service.

We looked at supervisions, appraisals and training records and found that they were up to date and that there were plans in place to update staff training.

We spoke to a range of staff including two managers and three team leaders. We also spoke with people's relatives. We found that staff were aware of people's specific needs and demonstrated knowledge on what to do if they witnessed or suspected abuse.

We found that care plans and risk assessments had been updated to reflect people's needs. However it would be useful for the provider to note that risk assessments were sometimes generic and not very specific to the individual's behaviour. One staff member was unaware that a person used simple makaton (a method of communicating using signs), although this was documented in their care plan.

There were adequate procedures in place to check on the quality of service provided.

31 October 2012 and 10 January 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited this service on 31/10/12 following information from staff about concerns they had raised with the provider regarding complaints made about how some staff treated people. We spoke to seven staff and four people who used the service. We also observed another four people who could not express themselves verbally.

We revisited on 10/01/2013 and spoke to staff and looked at recruitment documentation for all staff who worked at the supported living service. We were told by staff that appropriate pre-employment checks had been made prior to them starting work. Staff said they had been interviewed and references and a Criminal Records Bureau check had been taken before they started employment. We looked through current staff files and found documentary evidence to support that sufficient recruitment checks were done.

We spoke to staff and asked if they had any concerns about the safety of people that used the service. None of the staff we spoke to said they had witnessed any abuse.

21 September 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

People who used the service gave us mixed reviews about the care they received. We spoke to relatives and three people who used the service. We observed six people that were unable to converse coherently or were non verbal. We found that four out of six appeared calm and were interacting positively with staff. However two people were withdrawn, sitting and not interacting. Staff confirmed that these people preferred to sit alone and we found that little had been done to find ways of engaging them. Some parents were satisfied whilst others thought more could be done. For example, a relative told us that they, 'were waiting for feedback about concerns raised regarding his speech and not being given access to the computer."

Other relatives were happy with the care. One relative said "they provide the best respite care I have ever come across." Another relative said "she has improved so much. As long as she is happy, then I am happy." Another relative said "he loves it there. He is really happy and enjoys it."

Relatives and people said staff were kind. One relative said 'staff look after her well. She is very happy." We found staff to be knowledgeable about the care of the people they looked after. However we found that people who used the service and their families were not always involved planning daily activities. For example though there were lots of facilities and activities going on they were not always suited to the needs of some of the individuals.