We carried out a review of the data available to us about United Response - Felpham DCA 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 United Response - Felpham DCA, you can give feedback on this service.
United Response – Felpham DCA is registered to provide personal care to people living with learning disabilities in supported living and extra care accommodation. Six people received care and support in two supported living bungalows that were next door to one another while six people received care and support in an extra care setting. Accommodation is based in the Felpham and Rustington area. The personal care and/or support people receive is regulated by the Care Quality Commission, but their accommodation is not. At the time of this inspection 12 people were receiving the regulated activity.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways; promotion of choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People’s experience of using this service:
People and their relatives were positive about the care and support provided. People lived independent and meaningful lives. The ethos, visions and values of the service were embedded into every day practice.
People told us they felt safe receiving care from United Response – Felpham DCA. Staff recognised the importance of leaving people’s flats safe and secure. Medicines were administered by trained and competent staff and staff were aware of procedures to follow to prevent and control the spread of infection. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Privacy and dignity were promoted and respected at all times. With pride, staff told us how they supported people to pursue their individual dreams, hobbies and interests.
People's needs were fully assessed and regularly reviewed. Care and support were person-centred, people enjoyed good outcomes and quality of life. Staff were well trained and knowledgeable about the needs and wishes of the people they supported. Where people were unable to make decisions about their care, the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Supporting people to maintain their health and well-being was a key focus of the service.
Staff and the registered manager worked well with external healthcare professionals to promote good outcomes for people. For people living with complex care needs, staff promoted partnership working with healthcare professionals to ensure people received regular care and medicine reviews.
Staff upheld people’s human rights and people were supported to attend their local church. Staff encouraged people to learn new skills and maintain their independence. There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.
Information about how to make a complaint was available to people and their families, and they felt confident that any complaint would be addressed by the management. People, relatives and staff told us that the registered manager was supportive, approachable and hands on.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection in July 2016, the service was rated Good (13 September 2016).
Why we inspected:
This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Felpham DCA provides personal care in a setting called ‘supported living’ in three locations in the Felpham and East Preston area. Supported Living is a scheme where people live in their own homes and are supported to be independent by a team of care staff. Care was provided to 12 people aged from 57 to 86 years.
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.
Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People said they felt safe with the staff.
Care records showed any risks to people were comprehensively assessed and there was good guidance of how those risks should be managed to prevent any risk of harm.
Staff were provided in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs and provided care at times agreed with people.
People received their medicines safely.
Staff had access to a range of relevant training courses, including nationally recognised qualifications. Staff were supported in their work and received regular supervision from their line manager.
Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager knew the responsibilities of assessing people’s capacity and when to seek advice by referring people to the local authority where there was an issue regarding people’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment.
People were supported with shopping and the preparation of their meals.
People’s health care needs were assessed, monitored and recorded. Referrals for assessment and treatment were made when needed and people received regular health checks.
Staff had positive working relationships with people and were observed to have a good rapport with them . People were consulted about their care and staff used communication tools to find out what people wanted. Care was provided by staff who sought to promote people’s independence and valued the people they provided care to.
Assessments and care plans were comprehensive and of a very good standard with close attention to detail which ensured care was ‘tailor made’ to meet individual needs and wishes. We call this person centred care.
People were supported to attend a range of activities, which included employment, hobbies, social events, holidays, day trips and attendance at the theatre and opera.
The service had a complaints procedure and people said they knew what to do if they had a complaint. The service encouraged people to express their views and any concerns, which were recorded and acted on.
There was a good standard of quality assurance at the service and people were involved in various aspects of the running of the service. People and their relatives’ views were sought as part of the service’s quality assurance process.
There were also a number of systems for checking the safety and effectiveness of the service such as regular audits.
Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service well-led?
This is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
People told us that they felt safe. Safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to maintain a safe environment.
The service had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they or their representatives were involved in the compilation of their support plans. People said that they had been involved in this process and that they reflected their current needs.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person said, "It love it here. The staff are great".
People using the service and their families were actively involved in the measuring of quality of the service. This helped to improve the service in the future.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and complaints were resolved in a satisfactory and timely manner.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to ensure that people received their care in a joined up way. The service also operated a quality assurance system which identified and addressed shortcomings. As a result, the good quality of the service was maintained.
The staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of the needs of the people they were looking after and were properly trained to carry out their duties.
All of the people we spoke with told us that their care was personalised to their needs and that their privacy, dignity and independence was respected. For example, one person said, "We look after ourselves; I wash up in the morning". Another person was keen to show us the positive result they had achieved from their efforts to lose weight. They showed us a weight loss graph which had been designed to their needs and told us about the treat they would receive when they reached their weight loss target. They said, 'They are very nice they take me to X (slimming club). Then they take me shopping and help me to choose the right foods to help me to lose weight".
Everyone also felt that staff were well trained and understood their needs. For example, one person told us, "The people that help us are very nice. They can do everything that I want them to".
People told us that they were happy with the way that staff were supporting them in taking their medications. One person told us, 'They always come in on time and we talk about my tablets while I take them'.
People told us that they felt safe and if they had concerns they would speak with a family member, friend or somebody from the office. Everyone that we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service they received and that care workers were reliable and friendly.
The evidence we gathered during our inspection supported the comments made by people.
People received care that was personalised to their needs and that their privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted. For example, one person said, "My X (refering to a family member) hates change and staff understand this. They talk to X, plan things well in advance and offer X all the support X needs". A member of staff told us, "The focus here is not just people's physical wellbeing but their mental wellbeing as well. It's all about quality of life. It's our job to give as much support and information as each person needs so that they can make their own choices and decisions".
Staff that we spoke with expressed the view that they were supported by management to undertake their roles and responsibilities. However our evidence found that formal support was not provided on a consistent basis and was not in line with the provider's policy.