The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Bradford Supported Living

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Suite G423, G Mill, Dean Clough Mills, Halifax, West Yorkshire, HX3 5AX (01422) 438540

Provided and run by:
Saint John of God Hospitaller Services

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

15 June 2016

During a routine inspection

On the 15 & 28 June and 4 July 2016 we inspected Bradford Supported Living Services. This was an announced inspection.

As a result of the April 2015 inspection the Commission used its enforcement powers to issue three warning notices. This inspection was a comprehensive inspection where we checked whether Bradford Supported Living Services had made necessary improvements. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and management were not always office based. We found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of regulation.

Bradford Supported Living provides personal care and support to adults with learning disabilities who live in their own homes. The service operates across five private houses in the Bradford area where people are encouraged to live as independently as possible. At the time of our inspection the service was providing 24 hour supported living services to 15 people. A supported living service is one where people live in their own home and receive care and support to enable them to live independently without total reliance on parents or guardians. People have tenancy agreements with a landlord and receive their care and support from the domiciliary care agency. As the housing and care arrangements are separate, people can choose to change their care provider and remain living in the same house.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about

how the service is run.

The safety of people who used the service was taken seriously and the management team and staff at Bradford Supported Living were aware of their responsibility to protect people's health and wellbeing.

There were processes in place to ensure people's safety, including risk assessments. These identified how the risks to people were minimised but also ensured people's rights to choice and freedom.

Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

People told us they were supported by a consistent team of support workers who they had developed good relationships with. People valued the relationship they had with the support workers.

There were systems in place to ensure people's rights to respect, privacy and dignity were promoted and respected. There were sufficient numbers of support workers to provide a flexible service and staff were trained and supported to meet people's individual needs.

Where people required assistance with their dietary needs this was planned to ensure it was appropriate and safe. Where support workers had identified concerns around people's wellbeing, appropriate action was taken to contact other relevant health and social care professionals.

People and their representatives (where appropriate) were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People's care records had been tailored to the individual and contained information about how they communicated and their ability to make decisions.

The service did not always fully assume people’s capacity in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The service was committed to person centred care and ensured people using the service were at the centre of everything they did. People's potential was recognised and they were supported to develop their skills and knowledge through learning.

The provider was seen to constantly strive to ensure people who used the service were able to achieve their full potential and people's choices were acted upon by staff and management who supported them to live a fulfilled life and cared for them in a way they preferred. There was evidence of positive outcomes for people, and people had pursued new opportunities, progressed over time, gained new skills and increased their independence.

There was a strong emphasis on person centred care and we found all staff and management were kind, caring and very positive in their attitude to the organisation and their role. They said they were committed to the support and care of the people who used the service.

The service had developed and sustained effective links with professionals and this helped them foster a multidisciplinary approach to supporting people. We saw written evidence from family members, health care professionals and the care files we reviewed that showed people's needs were continually reviewed.

Care plans ensured staff had all the guidance and information they needed to enable them to provide individualised care and support. People were consulted and involved in assessments and reviews.

People who used and worked for the service felt able to express their views and opinions to influence service delivery. The management team provided a support network for staff and acted on the views of people. People and staff told us they thought the service was well managed.

Systems to continually monitor the quality of the service were effective. The registered provider gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources including people who used the service, their family and professionals.

29 April 2015

During a routine inspection

On 29 April 2015 we inspected Bradford Supported Living. This was an unannounced inspection.

Although there was a registered manager, they had not worked for the provider since August 2013. They had not correctly notified us that they had left their position and filled out an application to cancel. 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.

Bradford Supported Living provides personal care and support to adults with learning disabilities who live in their own homes. The service operates across five private houses in the Bradford area where people are encouraged to live as independently as possible.

We visited the provider’s office on 29 April and 7 May 2015 and spoke with people who used the service and their families on 15, 18 May 2015 and 1 and 5 June 2015.

The provider had a safeguarding policy in place and we found staff members were knowledgeable about safeguarding and were knowledgeable about warning signs to look out for and how they would respond to a concern. Staff had received safeguarding training, and posters with contact numbers were visible in the office and in bathrooms in people’s homes.

Staffing levels were at a minimum. There was not enough permanent staff to fill all the shifts on rotas, so additional shifts were covered through overtime, staff from other homes and agency staff. This was not ideal as people did not receive consistent care from regular faces. However staff told us that they believed this had not impacted on the care and treatment being provided to people.

There was a recruitment policy in place. We looked at staff’s files and saw staff had followed the correct procedure having had an interview, ID check, two references and criminal records check. However we found two members of staff had activity on the criminal records check. One of the two staff had not disclosed the activity at interview.

We saw people had any risks assessed and recorded as part of their care plan. Risk assessments were person centred and contained information about how to reduce the risk and they gave an overall risk rating. This made it clear to see which risks raised more concern. However some risk assessments we looked at had not been reviewed in over 12 months. This showed us risk was not being assessed against people’s most up to date needs and were not regularly reviewed.

We found staff had not been supported appropriately. We looked at staff’s files and found no supervision records for three people. Other staff’s supervision records were not consistent. We asked the service improvement manager how often supervisions with staff should be. They told us staff should receive one to one support at least twice a year. Staff told us supervision meetings did not happen as often as they should and this had led to some staff feeling unsupported.

We asked to see recent audits conducted on the Bradford Supported Living services. The service improvement manager could only give us two audits that had taken place. One audit was conducted on each location in March 2015 and the other was completed on 10 September 2014. The service improvement manager told us there had been previous audits but as they were new in post, they had not accessed these. On one audit we identified some gaps and some errors. This showed us the audit process was not effective.

We observed care and treatment being delivered in people’s homes. We saw staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. Some people had high support needs and their preferred method of communication was not verbal we found staff were familiar with the communication methods of different people.

We spoke with family members about the care their relative received. Relatives told us they were happy over all with the care and welfare provided. Some family members had recognised that times in the past were not so good but things had improved. Family members now felt communication with staff was good and they felt involved in the care planning process.

The service did not have a complaints system in place to record recent compliments and complaints. The manager and service improvement manager told us there should be a method to record complaints and they had a policy for it but could not show us any records. This meant there was no process to record complaints in order to learn and make improvements as required.

People we spoke with told us they enjoyed living in their homes. People said they liked the staff now and had a laugh with them. People felt safe in their own homes and felt they had control. People told us they were fully involved in their care plans and they told staff what they liked to do. People also commented on the food. They said they do their own menu plans and go shopping themselves. Different houses agreed the best way to plan and buy food with other house mates. We observed over lunch time and saw staff encouraging healthy food for one person’s lunch.

We found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the report.

2 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with three people who used the service. They all said they were happy with the support they received. They told us staff were kind and provided them with support when they required it.

We also spoke with five relatives. Most relatives said they felt involved, attended regular reviews of their relatives' care and said staff were quick to make any required changes. One relative said, 'I have to rely on the staff who appear to me to be sincere in the care they deliver. ' Another relative said, 'the home is well staffed, they deal with all medical matters and keep me up to date.'

Seven out of the eight people we spoke with told us when they had provided feedback in the past they felt staff had listened to them and made changes if they were appropriate to the needs of people who used the service. However, one relative said they felt the service was sometimes slow to make improvements.

22 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with three people who used the service and five relatives. Most people we spoke with told us staff were professional, efficient, friendly, and had a good understanding of people's needs and respected people's individual personalities. One person described that when staff supported their relative to visit 'it's like having them visit with a couple of friends'. Another person said 'staff appear to be sincere in the care they deliver.' Another said, 'as far as I am concerned the carers are very good and I am very happy with the service they provide'. All of the relatives and people who used the service told us they felt safe and 'trusted' staff to care for them appropriately.

17 September 2012

During a routine inspection

Bradford supported living provides personal care and support to people with learning disabilities in their own homes, it is called a supported living service.

We inspected the service over three days; we visited the agency office, two people's houses and talked with one person who received support from the agency. Some of the people who used the service had complex needs and were unable to tell us about their experiences. Therefore, we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, such as reviewing care records and speaking to the relatives of two people who lived at the home.

One person, who was able to tell us about their experiences of living at the service, told us that they were happy and satisfied with the care and support being provided. Two relatives also told us they were satisfied with the care and treatment their relatives received and were well informed about their relatives care.

Two relatives told us they would make their views known if they had any concerns about the service.

However, despite the positive comments people made, we found evidence the registered care provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Also people who use the service were not protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.