You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 November 2016

This was an announced inspection carried out on the 26 and 31 October 2016. At the last inspection in August 2014 we found the provider met the regulations we looked at. We gave notice of our inspection because we needed to be sure somebody would be available at the office and arrangements could be made for us to visit people in their homes.

The domiciliary support team is part of Outreach, Community and Residential Services. The organisation is a registered charity who provide support and personal care to people living in the community and to people living in supported living services. The service provides support to people with a range of needs including people with a learning disability or a mental health condition.

At the time of the inspection, the service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe with the support offered. Staff could describe and understood their responsibilities to support people to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were recruited safely, which ensured they were of a good character to work with people who used this service.

Overall, people received their medicines as prescribed and safe systems were in place to manage people's medicines. Staff were trained in medication administration and their competency was checked regularly.

People's homes and equipment were regularly checked and the provider had plans to keep people safe during significant incidents, such as a fire.

Sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people's support needs. People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected Staff understood people's individual needs in relation to their care. Support plans were person centred and reflected individual's preferences.

The management team and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They had made appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities to ensure people's rights were protected.

Staff training was updated regularly and staff had regular supervision that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care.

People who used the service had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to meet their health needs

People chose their own food and drink and were supported to maintain a balanced diet where this was required.

Care records contained enough information to guide staff on the care and support required and contained information relating to what was important to the person and how any risks were managed. These were reviewed regularly and showed involvement of people who used the service.

The service had a number of ways of involving people and getting their suggestions for how the service could be improved. People who used the service had been involved in planning and reviewing the care provided. They were also involved in recruitment and service quality auditing.

People were supported to pursue social interests relevant to their needs, wishes and interests.

There was an effective complaints procedure for people to raise their concerns. People were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken to resolve any complaints they had. Information on raising concerns was available in accessible formats.

Quality assurance systems that were in place were sufficiently robust to identify areas for improvement. The registered manager and staff were committed and enthusiastic about providing a person centred service for people.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 November 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in supporting people to keep safe.

Overall, people received safe support with their medicines where this was required.

There were sufficient staff to ensure people's needs were met safely, and recruitment procedures were thorough to ensure the staff employed were suitable.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 November 2016

The service was effective.

People received support from staff who received regular, relevant training and guidance.

The registered manager and staff understood people's rights to make choices about their care, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People had access to healthcare services when required and their nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 November 2016

The service was caring.

We observed interactions from staff members that were kind and caring.

Staff had developed good relationships with the people who used the service and there was a happy, relaxed atmosphere.

Staff understood how to treat people with dignity and respect and were confident people received good care. People’s independence was encouraged.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People had contributed to the planning and review of their support needs. They received person centred support based on their preferences and wishes.

People enjoyed a range of activities and were supported to participate in their local community

Effective systems were in place to respond to any concerns and complaints raised.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 November 2016

The service was well- led.

There was a registered manager in place who demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the service and showed they were committed to providing a person centred, inclusive service.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and said they felt well supported by a management team who were open and approachable.

The provider had effective and robust checks in place to monitor the quality of the service.