You are here

Archived: Royal Association for Deaf People Community Support Service

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

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 November 2013
Date of Publication: 28 January 2014
Inspection Report published 28 January 2014 PDF | 91.94 KB


Inspection carried out on 12 November 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of this inspection the Royal Association for Deaf People Community Support Service was providing an active service to 57 people.

We spoke with the registered manager, office manager, administration staff, five care staff, three relatives of people who used the service and seven people who received care from the service.

Staff supported people who used the service to fill out our questionnaires. People who used the service who responded to our questionnaires told us that the support staff arrived on time and if they were going to be late they sent a fax. They told us they were involved in their care plan, support staff gave all the help they should and the service was good. One person told us they would not be worried to say something if a staff member was horrible to them and another said the service was good, they took them out and they laughed and had fun.

Staff told us they had supervision every 4-5 weeks. They said that they had enough information about the person they were going to support before they did so for the first time. They felt supported by the office and organisation and would feel confident to raise concerns if they felt the service was doing something wrong.

Staff thought the organisation did well and provided a good service, but some staff told us they thought better matching could be made with skills in the team, for example, more sign interpreters.

Where people received care they were asked for their consent and where people did not have capacity to consent the provider had procedures to ensure they acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights and there were sufficient procedures in place to plan for all foreseeable emergencies relevant to the current support the service provided.

We noted that people who used the service were not cared for and supported by staff that had appropriate checks undertaken before they began work, to ensure they were suitable to work with the people the service supports.

We found that although the health and safety of people who used the service was reviewed and audited, the health and safety of staff was not always protected, as working environments were not assessed or monitored. We also found that the quality assurance system in place to record the findings of quality questionnaires from people who use the service, relatives, advocates and stakeholders, was not effective as there was no system in place to analyse the results, identify and record action to improve quality and feed back to the people who use the service, relatives, advocates and stakeholders.