You are here

Archived: Choice Support Nottingham Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 September 2016

This inspection took place on 17 August 2016. Choice Support Nottingham is a supported living and outreach service which provides personal care and support to people in their own home. On the day of our inspection 58 people were using the service.

The service had 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.

People felt safe and were supported by staff who knew how to keep them safe. A recent concern shared by a staff member had not been reported in a timely way, although lessons had been learnt following this. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and appropriately managed. People were supported by a sufficient number of staff. People received the support they needed to safely manage their medicines and did so with an appropriate degree of independence.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to care for people effectively and felt well supported. People received the level of support they required to have enough to eat and drink and were supported to access a range of healthcare services.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found this legislation was being used correctly to protect people who were not able to make their own decisions about the care they received. Where people had the capacity they were asked to provide their consent to the care being provided.

People were treated with kindness and respect by staff. Caring relationships had been developed and people were supported by staff who understood their personalities and the best way to engage with them. People and their relatives were able to be involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. Staff supported people to make day to day decisions.

People were provided with support that was responsive to their changing needs and staff helped people to maintain any hobbies and interests they had. There was a focus of helping people to set and achieve goals and to learn new skills. People felt able to make a complaint and were provided with an accessible complaints procedure. There was an appropriate response to any complaints received.

The culture of the service was open and honest and people and staff gave their opinions on how the service was run and suggestions were implemented where possible. The registered manager acknowledged that they had altered their approach to ensure they were more open to challenge from staff. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that improvements to the service were made.

Inspection areas



Updated 27 September 2016

The service was safe.

People received the support required to keep them safe and manage any risks to their health and safety.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people�s needs.

People received the support needed to manage their medicines.



Updated 27 September 2016

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who received support through training and supervision.

People were able to provide consent and where people lacked capacity their rights were protected.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and had access to healthcare services.



Updated 27 September 2016

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff who had developed positive and caring relationships with them.

People were involved in their care planning and made decisions about their care.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected.



Updated 27 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People received person centred support and staff were responsive to their needs. People�s care plans were regularly reviewed and updated.

Complaints were appropriately investigated and responded to.



Updated 27 September 2016

The service was well led.

There was an open and positive culture in the service and people were asked for their views about the service.

There was an effective quality monitoring system to check that the care met people�s needs.