You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 August 2017

Darwin Community Support provides supported living services to people with learning disabilities in their own homes. At the time of our inspection twenty three people were receiving personal care services from the staff team who worked for the agency. Support packages varied from 24 hour support 7 days a week, to supporting people for a few hours to access leisure activities.

The inspection of this service took place on 12 and 13 April 2017 and was announced.

There was a registered manager in post and they were present at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, registered managers 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.

People had been involved in identifying and assessing hazards and risks associated with providing their support. However, we found that some known risks had not always been managed safely to protect people from harm.

Risks had not always been properly assessed and guidance that had been put in place to protect staff was, on occasion, ineffective. In addition, staff did not always have the skills or back up to offer safe support.

Staffing issues had created challenges for the agency and at times had compromised people’s safety. Overall, people felt that staffing levels were improving although some people were not receiving consistent support from a dedicated team who knew them well. This meant that the quality of care was compromised.

People were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines because staff were not always confident to manage processes safely. Policies, procedures and training required improvement to reflect the domiciliary type service provided.

People were supported by staff who knew how to keep them safe and free from abuse. Staff knew how to recognise and report concerns, problems or signs of potential abuse. The registered manager and staff team worked effectively with outside agencies to keep people safe when required.

People were supported by staff who had the basic knowledge and skills to provide effective support and further training about specialist conditions is being arranged. The registered manager was actively reviewing this issue and addressing this shortfall. Staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices meaning that only people suitable to work in the role were appointed.

People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people were supported to make choices in relation to the care and support they received. Staff respected people’s decisions and they supported people to ensure decisions made were in the person’s best interests.

People received the appropriate amount of support to enable them to enjoy a varied and balanced diet. People’s independence was promoted and staff worked with healthcare professionals to promote people’s good health.

People were supported by staff who were caring and kind. People were listened to and consulted making them feel involved and in control of their care and support. People told us they were supported to remain as independent as possible and staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People received a responsive service that reflected their individual needs and wishes. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support requirements and could offer flexible support as people’s needs changed. People remained at the heart of the service provided. Care plans reflected individualised support packages that focussed on meeting people’s assessed needs and their aspirations for the future.

People knew how to raise concerns and felt confident that the registered manager would listen to them. Relatives had mixed experiences of complaints effecting change although they all thought the investigation process was thorough

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was mostly safe.

Risks were not always managed safely to protect people from harm.

People were not always supported by staff in a safe and consistent manner.

People were not always supported by staff who had the confidence and knowledge to ensure they received their medicines as prescribed.

People were safe because staff knew how to protect them from the risk of potential abuse.

People were supported by staff who were suitable to work with them because the provider’s recruitment process was robust.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the basic knowledge and training to provide effective support and specialist training was being sourced to further skill the staff team.

People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff offered individualised support.

People were supported to enjoy a varied and nutritious diet.

People were supported to access health care support. Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals to promote and maintain people’s good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was caring.

People received care and support that was delivered by staff who were kind and helpful.

People were listened to and were supported to make their own decisions and choices.

People’s independence was promoted.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s individual needs were assessed and met in ways that they preferred.

Staff were responsive to meet people’s changing needs.

People and their relatives were confident their concerns and complaints would be listened to, taken seriously and acted on. Although not everyone felt confident that changes would lead to improvements.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 August 2017

The service was well-led.

People were confident that the service was well run.

People’s views were sought in relation to the quality of the service provided. Most staff felt that their views were listened to and acted upon.

There were procedures in place to monitor and review the quality of the service although these required review to reflect the domiciliary type service provided.