You are here

Scenario Management - Riversmede Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 March 2017

This inspection visit took place on 25 January 2017 and was announced.

At the last inspection in September 2015 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements because we found a breach of legal requirements. This was in relation to people being deprived of their liberty for the purpose of receiving care without lawful authority. We also made recommendations to improve health and safety, person centred care, consent and capacity and governance of the service. The provider sent us an action plan saying how they would meet the legal requirements and recommendations. During our inspection visit on 25 January 2017 we found these actions had been completed.

Scenario Management Limited is registered as a domiciliary care agency which provides a supported house for people with learning disabilities and behaviour that challenges. Staffing is provided 24 hours each day to support the people living in the supported house. At the time of the inspection visit there were three people who lived in the house.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 the service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and took necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood the process and procedure to follow.

We asked one person who lived at the house and relatives whether they felt safe being supported by Scenario Management - Riversmede. One person said when asked if they felt safe, “Yes I do.” A relative said, “I know [relative] going to be safe and well there.”

Risk assessments were in place and now reviewed on a regular basis to ensure people were safe. Where potential risks had been identified the action taken by the provider had been recorded.

Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service. Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

There were appropriate numbers of skilled staff deployed to meet the needs of the three people who lived at the house. Staff had been safely recruited and were supported by the management team with regular supervision and access to training courses.

We looked at how medicines were administered. We found procedures followed were safe. The management team ensured only staff that had been trained to manage and administer medicines gave them to people

The manager demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff showed a good knowledge of the people they supported and their capacity to make decisions.

Staff we spoke with were able to describe how individual people preferred their support to be delivered and the importance of treating people with respect. One staff member said, “You have to be patient and talk slowly, we have developed ways to communicate with each other and get along great.”

People were provided with support to be as independent as they wanted to be. For example staff provided guidance and support for a person to help in the kitchen and dining area. One staff member said, “It is hard but [person who lived at the house] really enjoys helping out.”

We found people had access to healthcare, mental health services and social care professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included staff meetings, meetings with health and social care professionals and quality audits.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 March 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had a good understanding of protecting people from abuse or potential harm. People said they felt safe when supported.

Recruitment procedures were followed to ensure suitable checks for potential staff had been carried out, prior to commencement of employment.

Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people received a reliable and flexible service.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. Written plans were in place to manage these risks.

Medication was stored and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 March 2017

The service was effective.

The registered manager provided staff with training to underpin their role and responsibilities. They also guided staff to the principles related to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat and drink according to their plan of care.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with other healthcare professionals as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 March 2017

The service was caring.

People who lived in the supported house were treated with kindness and compassion in their day to day care.

Care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

People who lived at the house and advocates were involved in care planning, which was evidenced in care records.

Staff were respectful of people’s rights and privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 March 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were in place outlining people’s care and support needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support needs, their interests and preferences.

We observed staff engaged with people in a meaningful way. We found staff promote independence and provided people with choices in their social life.

The registered manager had a variety of systems to check and manage people’s complaints and concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 March 2017

The service was well led.

Systems and procedures were in place to monitor and assess the quality of service people were receiving.

The registered manager consulted with stakeholders, people they supported and relatives for their input on how the service could continually improve.

A range of audits were in place to monitor the health, safety and welfare of people.