You are here

Archived: Somerset LD Services 1 Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 6 December 2016

This inspection took place on 3 and 4 November 2016 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice because we wanted to meet the registered manager and needed to be certain they would be available during the inspection. This also gave the registered manager sufficient time to ask some people if they would be willing for us to visit and speak with them in their homes. The service was previously inspected on 3, 4 and 5 December 2013 when we found the service was fully compliant with all regulations covered in the inspection. During this inspection we found no breaches of regulations and we found people received a good service.

Somerset LD Services 1 specialises in providing supported living and domiciliary care services to adults who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The agency provides supported accommodation services in Frome and Shepton Mallet. They also provide a domiciliary care service to people living in a range of settings across Somerset. This part of the service was recently inspected during inspections of Somerset LD Services 3 and Somerset LD Services 5. Therefore we did not cover the domiciliary care part of the service during this inspection.

During this inspection we visited people living in supported living complexes in Frome and Shepton Mallet. Their accommodation was provided by separate housing providers or landlords, usually on a rental or lease arrangement. The housing services are not regulated or inspected by CQC. People could choose an alternative support service provider if they wished while continuing to remain in their current accommodation.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us the staff were kind and caring and they felt the staff supported them to remain as safe as possible. A relative praised the staff and said they were confident people were safe from harm or abuse. They told us “The staff are all caring. Never a harsh word said to anyone.”

Staff had received training on safeguarding adults and knew how to identify and report any suspicion of abuse. .

People received reliable and consistent support from a stable and well trained staff team. Each supported housing complex had a team of staff based there. People could choose the staff they wanted to support them. They had been consulted and involved, as far as they were able, to draw up and agree a plan of their support needs. Each person either held, or had access to their support plans and records of their health and personal care needs. Staff were expected to read the support plans and provide support in accordance with the person's wishes. People told us there were enough staff employed to meet their needs.

People had access to a range of health professionals. Where people's health needs had changed, staff worked closely with other health professionals to ensure they received support to meet their needs. Each person was supported by staff to receive regular health check-ups and treatment from doctors and health professionals. Staff knew how to identify potential health problems and supported people to seek medical attention promptly.

Each person received support to help them manage their medicines safely. Staff had received training and support to ensure they followed safe practice when administering medicines. Records of medicines administered had been well maintained.

People were supported by staff who had received a range of training that provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet each person's health and personal care needs effectively. Staff received regular supervision and support. They were positive and enthusiastic and told us they enjoy

Inspection areas



Updated 6 December 2016

The service was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet their individual support needs.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm.

Risks were identified and managed to enable people to remain safe.



Updated 6 December 2016

The service was effective.

People received personal care and support from staff who were trained to meet their individual needs.

People were encouraged to carry out day to day tasks with staff support to develop daily living skills and to maintain their independence.

People were supported to maintain good health and to access health and social care professionals when needed.

The service acted in line with current legislation and guidance where people lacked the mental capacity to make certain decisions about their support needs.



Updated 6 December 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect and were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be.

The staff and management were caring, friendly and considerate.

Staff had a good understanding of each person's preferred communication methods and how they expressed their individual needs and preferences.



Updated 6 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People were consulted and involved in decisions about their support needs to the extent they were able to express their preferences.

People's individual needs and preferences were understood and acted on.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident they would be listened to and appropriate actions taken to address their complaints.



Updated 6 December 2016

The service was well led.

The service had a caring and supportive culture focused on meeting people's individual support needs and increasing their social inclusion.

People were supported by a motivated and dedicated staff team and accessible and approachable management.

The provider's quality assurance systems were effective in maintaining and promoting the standards of service provision.