You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 January 2018

This inspection took place on 16 and 17 October 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours' notice because the location provides a personal care service to supported living services and we needed to be sure someone would be in. One inspector carried out this inspection.

Adelaide Care provides supported living and personal care to adults with autism and learning disabilities living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection there were 36 people using the service.

At the last inspection on 23 and 24 July 2015 the service was given a Good rating overall and we found one breach of the regulations. This was because the provider had not arranged for applications to the Court of Protection as required by the Mental Capacity Act (2005) when people were having their liberty restricted. At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made. The provider had liaised with the different local authorities and appropriate applications had been made to the Court of Protection where people’s care and support may amount to their liberty being deprived.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough suitably experienced and qualified staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were knowledgeable about reporting safeguarding concerns and understood the whistleblowing procedure. The provider reported accidents and incidents appropriately and used these as an opportunity for learning. People had risk assessments and management plans which included behaviour management and protection of finances. Medicines were managed safely by suitably trained and competent staff. People were protected from the risk of the spread of infection.

People and relatives thought staff provided an effective service. Staff had regular opportunities for learning and development. Staff confirmed they had regular support through supervisions and they found this useful. People were supported to prepare a choice of nutritional food that met their dietary requirements. Care plans included important health information and people had access to healthcare professionals as needed.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and preferences. People and relatives thought staff were caring. Staff were aware of equality and diversity issues and providing an inclusive service. People were supported in a dignified manner and their privacy was respected. Staff were knowledgeable about maintaining people’s independence.

Care records were personalised and contained people’s preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about providing a personalised care service. People were able to access activities of their choice. Complaints were dealt with appropriately and people and relatives knew how to raise concerns. The provider used complaints and compliments to make improvements to the service.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the leadership in the service. The provider had a system of obtaining feedback from people through a survey in order to make improvements to the service. People also had regular meetings so they could contribute to the development of the service. Staff had regular meetings so they could be updated on changes within the service and policies and to encourage good working practices. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 January 2018

The service was safe. People and relatives thought the service was safe and there were enough staff to meet people�s needs. Safe recruitment checks were carried out for new staff and criminal record checks were up to date.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. People had risk assessments and behaviour management plans to ensure risks were mitigated. The provider had a system to safeguard people�s finances. Medicines were managed safely. People were protected from the risk of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 January 2018

The service was effective. New staff received an induction and staff were supported with refresher training. Staff were also supported with regular supervisions.

The provider was aware of what was required of them to work within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and applications to the Court of Protection for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) were made appropriately. Staff were knowledgeable about obtaining consent from people before delivering care.

People were supported to prepare their choice of food to meet their nutritional and dietary requirements. The service assisted people to access healthcare professionals as needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 January 2018

The service was caring. People and relatives thought staff were caring. The service had a system where people were supported by the same staff team. This ensured staff were knowledgeable about people�s needs and preferences.

Staff demonstrated they were knowledgeable about providing dignified care and respecting privacy. The service provided equality and diversity training and staff were knowledgeable about providing an inclusive service. Staff demonstrated awareness of maintaining people�s independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 January 2018

The service was responsive. Care records were personalised and contained people�s preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about providing a personalised care service. People had access to a variety of activities in accordance with their preferences.

The provider maintained a record of compliments and complaints to use as a tool to improve the service. People and relatives confirmed they knew how to raise a concern if they were not happy. Complaints were dealt with in a timely manner and in accordance with the policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 January 2018

The service was well led. There was a registered manager at the service. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the leadership of the service.

The provider had systems of obtaining feedback about the quality of the service through a survey and regular meetings with people who used the service. The provider held regular meetings with staff to keep them updated on service developments. There were quality assurance systems in place to audit the quality of the service being delivered and issues were dealt with appropriately.