You are here

Stepping Stone Independent Living Ltd Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 November 2018

This inspection took place on 11 and 12 October 2018. It was an announced visit to the service.

We previously inspected the service in August 2017. The service was not meeting all of the requirements of the regulations at that time and was rated ‘requires improvement’. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions ‘safe’ and ‘well-led’ to at least ‘good.'

This service provides care and support to people living in two 'supported living' settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service can provide support for up to 12 people. Eleven people were using the service at the time of our inspection. In one setting, people lived in a shared house and had their own bedroom with en-suite facilities. In the other setting, people lived in self-contained studio flats.

The service had 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.

We found improvements had been made in the areas where the service was previously not meeting the regulations. These were in relation to medicines practice and notification of significant events.

People told us they liked living at the service. Relatives were complimentary of care. For example,

"The staff cope well with the diversity of all the different adults. Everyone seems to be happy. On the whole they do a good job caring" and "I've seen staff be patient, kind and compassionate." Some relatives had concerns people had put on weight and also about personal hygiene. The registered manager told us encouragement was given to follow healthier diets, to exercise and to attend to personal care.

People were supported to be independent at the service. They had 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.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse or harm. Written risk assessments supported people to keep safe.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. They were recruited using robust procedures to make sure people were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes. Staff received appropriate support through a structured induction, regular supervision and appraisal of their performance. However, this was not the case for the registered manager. We have made a recommendation for them to receive regular supervision. There was an on-going training programme to provide and update staff on safe ways of working

Care plans had been written, to document people’s needs and their preferences for how they wished to be supported. These had been kept up to date to reflect changes in people’s needs. People were supported to take part in a wide range of social activities. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments to keep healthy and well.

There had not been any complaints about the service. People knew how to raise any concerns and were relaxed when speaking with staff and the registered manager.

The service was managed well. The quality of care was assessed through surveys an

Inspection areas



Updated 10 November 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm because staff received training to be able to identify and report abuse. There were procedures for staff to follow in the event of any abuse happening.

People�s likelihood of experiencing injury or harm was reduced because risk assessments had been written to identify areas of potential risk.

People were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes because robust recruitment procedures were used by the service.



Updated 10 November 2018

The service was effective.

People received safe and effective care because staff were appropriately supported through a structured induction, supervision and training.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and day to day lives. Decisions made on behalf of people who lacked capacity were made in their best interests, in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received the support they needed to attend healthcare appointments and keep healthy and well.



Updated 10 November 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported to be independent and to access the community.

People�s views were listened to and acted upon.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and protected their privacy.



Updated 10 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s preferences and wishes were supported by staff and through care planning.

There were procedures for making compliments and complaints about the service.

People were supported to take part in activities to increase their stimulation.



Updated 10 November 2018

The service was well-led.

The quality of people�s care was monitored to make sure it met people�s needs safely and effectively.

Improvement had been made to reporting of serious occurrences or incidents to the Care Quality Commission. This meant we could see what action they had taken in response to these events, to protect people from the risk of harm.

People were cared for in a service which was open and transparent when things went wrong.