You are here

Craegmoor Supporting You in the South East Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 30 March 2018

This announced inspection took place on 06 and 07 February 2018 and 12 and 13 February 2018.

This service provides personal care and support to adults living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection only looked at people’s personal care. This supported living service meets the needs of people with learning disabilities, autism or people with more complex health needs such as epilepsy. At the time of this inspection there were 24 people receiving personal care. The service is run from an office in New Romney.

A registered manager was not employed at the service. However, the provider’s regional manager had applied to register as the manager and was available to support the inspection process. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

Craegmoor Supporting You in the South East Services was placed in special measures in December 2016. [Services that are in special measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months.] We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. The last inspection report for Craegmoor Supporting You in the South East was published on 05 September 2017, with an 'Inadequate' rating following a comprehensive inspection, which took place on 28, 29 and 30 June 2017 and 03 July 2017. At that inspection, although we found improvements, we found six breaches of the legal requirements set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches were in relation to Regulation 9, Person centred care; Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment; Regulation 13, Safeguarding service users; Regulation 16, Receiving and acting on complaints; Regulation 17, Good governance; Regulation 18, Staffing. Due to these breaches we used our regulatory powers by imposing conditions on the provider’s registration and this service remained in special measures.

During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is now out of Special Measures.

The provider had restructured the management of this supported living service from a centralised model to a localised model. This had facilitated improved operational and quality management oversight by the deployment of an experienced regional manager to take day-to-day charge of this service. The regional manager had been supported to make significant improvements in the last six months by an experienced senior quality improvement manager. These changes had assisted the provider to meet the Regulations set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The regional manager and the provider had demonstrated a desire to improve the quality of the service for people with a learning disability by listening to feedback, asking people their views and improving how the service was delivered. People, their relatives and staff felt that the service was now well led. They told us that the management understood people’s needs, were approachable and listened to their views. The service commissioners told us that the service had improved. The provider and regional manager continued to develop business plans to further improve the quality of the service.

The regional manager had involved people in planning their care by re-assessing their needs based on a person centred approach. Care management reviews had taken place and in some cases, people were now receiving higher le

Inspection areas



Updated 30 March 2018

The service was safe.

People experienced a service that made them feel safe.

Individualised and general risks were assessed to minimise potential harm.

Staff knew what they should do to identify and raise safeguarding concerns. Management understood how to report safeguarding concerns and notified the appropriate agencies.

The provider used safe recruitment procedures and general and individual risks were assessed. Medicines were managed and administered safely.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and monitored to reduce risk.



Updated 30 March 2018

The service was effective.

People’s needs were assessed.

People accessed routine and urgent medical attention or referrals to health care specialists when needed.

People were cared for by staff who knew their needs well.

Staff encouraged people to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff met with their managers to discuss their work performance and each member of staff had attained the skills they required to carry out their role.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 was understood by the management and staff received training about this.



Updated 30 March 2018

The service was caring.

Staff used a range of communication methods to help people engage with their care.

People had forged good relationships with staff so that they were comfortable and felt well treated.

People were treated as individuals and able to make choices about their care.

People had been involved in planning their care and their views were taken into account.

People were treated with dignity and respect.



Updated 30 March 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff provided care to people as individuals. People were provided with the care they needed, based on a care plan about them.

People could take part in activities and socialise according to their lifestyle choices.

Information about people was updated often and with their involvement so that staff only provided care that was up to date.

People were encouraged to raise any issues they were unhappy about.



Updated 30 March 2018

The service was well led.

The provider operated systems and policies that focused on the quality of service delivery.

There were new localised management structures in place to monitor and review the risks and quality improvement that may present themselves as the service was delivered.

Staff understood they were accountable for the quality of the care they delivered.