You are here

Select Support Partnerships Ltd - Blackburn Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

This announced inspection took place on 14 and 15 September 2017. We last inspected the service in October 2015 when we found it was meeting the regulations we reviewed.

Select Support Partnerships (referred to throughout the report as Select Support) is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service specialises in providing support to people with a learning disability or who have mental health needs. Support is provided both to individuals and to people living in small group settings in Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire and Wigan. At the time of our inspection there were 74 people using the service.

The provider had a registered manager in place as required by the conditions of their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

People told us they had no concerns about their safety when they received support from staff employed by Select Support. They told us staff always treated them with respect and supported them to develop their independent living skills. Recruitment processes were sufficiently robust to protect people from the risks of unsuitable staff

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. They were aware of the procedure to follow should they witness or suspect abuse. They told us they would also be confident to report any poor practice they observed from colleagues and were confident their concerns would be taken seriously by the registered manager.

People who received support from staff to take their prescribed medicines told us they had no concerns about this. We saw appropriate systems were in place to help ensure the safe handling of medicines.

Risk assessments were in place in relation to each individual’s mental health needs as well as any environmental risks; these helped to protect the health and welfare of people who used the service and staff. Arrangements were in place to help ensure the prevention and control of infection.

Staff told us they received the induction, training and supervision they needed to be able to deliver safe and effective care. The induction programme in place included training in safeguarding adults and children, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, equality and diversity, first aid and fire safety. Staff were also required to complete a period of shadowing more experienced staff before they were allowed to work independently without close supervision.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff were able to tell us how they supported people to make their own decisions and choices. A range of communication tools were used by staff to help people engage in discussions about their care and support.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and goals. They demonstrated a commitment to providing high quality care which was personalised and tailored to the needs of each individual. People who used the service told us they were always able to make changes to their support plan should their needs or interests change.

There were numerous opportunities for people who used the service to comment on the support they received. We noted the responses in the provider’s most recent satisfaction survey were all very positive. A number of compliments about the positive impact of the service had also been received from relatives and professionals involved in people’s care.

Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service and that the registered manager was supportive and approachable. Regular staff meetings meant that staff were able to make suggestions about how the service could be improved. Staff told us their views were always listened to.

There were systems

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew the correct action to take if they witnessed or suspected abuse.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safe handling of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was effective.

Appropriate action had been taken to help safeguard the rights of people who were unable to consent to their care arrangements.

Staff had received the induction, training and supervision they required to support them to deliver effective and personalised care.

People received the support they needed to access healthcare services. Staff encouraged people to make healthy choices regarding the food they purchased and cooked.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was caring.

People provided positive feedback about the caring nature of the staff who supported them.

We saw the service focused on supporting people to be as independent as possible.

We saw evidence that the service regularly provided support to people who used the service and their families which went over and above the hours they were commissioned to provide.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People told us staff were responsive to their needs. We saw staff supported people to access a range of community based activities to meet their individual needs and interests.

There were systems in place for people to provide feedback on the quality of care they received. Any complaints received were fully investigated.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was well-led.

All the people we spoke with spoke extremely positively about the registered manager for the service. Our discussions with the registered manager showed they had a clear commitment to driving forward improvements in the service.

Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service and felt valued by the provider.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.