You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Amara Care Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 June 2013
Date of Publication: 27 July 2013
Inspection Report published 27 July 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 10 June 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services. We reviewed information sent to us by other authorities, talked with commissioners of services, talked with other authorities and took advice from our specialist advisors.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because some of them had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences of using the service.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan and in a way that was intended to ensure their safety and welfare. People who used the service were only deprived of their liberty when this had been authorised by the Court of Protection, or by a Supervisory Body under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

We observed that people, who lived in two supported living schemes that we visited, were supported by staff who engaged with them positively and in a friendly and sensitive manner. We saw that people were provided with opportunities to help them to participate in a variety of activities and that they were involved in decisions about the service they received.

People who used the service told us they were happy with the service provided. One person said the service was “Ever so good” whilst relatives told us that staff were “Compassionate and caring.”

We saw that information was maintained about support that was given, to enable this to be monitored by the provider and ensure it was delivered in a consistent manner by staff. Relatives and people who used the service to support them in their own homes told us the service was “Efficient” and that home visits to them were “Punctual” “Reliable” and “Always on time.”

We found that assessments about people had been carried out to ensure the service was able to meet their needs. Comprehensive support plans had been developed for people from their assessments of need, to enable support to be effectively delivered and ensure they were kept safe from harm. We saw that details about known risks were included within the case files of people who used the service, to ensure their welfare and safety was promoted and that staff had information about safe management arrangements for this.

We found that reviews of people’s support had been carried out by the service, together with liaison with community health and social care staff, to ensure that arrangements were appropriate for supporting their changing needs.

We spoke to the service commissioners who told us that overall they were satisfied with the service provided.

We observed one person who used one of the supported living schemes had very complex, profound needs and displayed very challenging behaviour, which posed a potential risk to them selves. Evidence of meetings previously held with the commissioners of the service, to discuss and agree support arrangements and ensure their ‘best interests’ were promoted were seen. We saw this had included discussion about management strategies to ensure this persons welfare and safety.

We found that an application had been made to the Offices of the Public Guardian, to ensure the use of a ‘Safe room’ for this person was the ‘least restrictive’ option available and that their legal rights were protected. We observed this room had mattresses on the walls and floor, to ensure risks to them were minimised. We were subsequently told an interim order in respect of this individual had been granted by the Court of Protection.

The provider may wish to note we were told that an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) was not formally involved in current decisions on behalf of this individual. However, the manager told us they would discuss this matter with the provider to ensure this was properly followed up. We saw evidence of close working arrangements with community health and social care staff involved with this person. We saw evidence of regular documentation and communication with the service commissioners, to ensure their health and welfare was monitored was also available.

We were told that discussions were currently underway; to enable the individual needs of this person to be further reviewed by local continuing health care staff. We spoke to the local authority Community Learning Disability Team about this and gained their assurance this matter would be brought to the attention of continuing health care st