You are here

Independent Living Solutions Limited Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 June 2018

The inspection took place on 19 and 27 April 2018 and was announced.

Independent Living Solutions provides specialist care and support packages to people living in their own homes. They work with people who have an identified need such as spinal cord injury, brain injury or cerebral palsy. They provide a case management and rehabilitation service to children and adults.

Not everyone using Independent Living Solutions receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

People and their relatives told us the staff were caring, there were good support teams in place and people were treated with respect and dignity.

People were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received appropriate training and were able to recognise any safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.

Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and guidance for staff on how to minimise those risks.

Consent to assist people was gained prior to any action or activity undertaken. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were able to apply this in their work with people.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications (court orders) had been made to the Supervisory Body appropriately, however not all documents were in place regarding health and welfare decisions for people who lacked capacity to make these decisions. We have made a recommendation about best practice regarding the Mental Capacity Act.

Care plans detailed people’s preferences, choices and independent abilities. Care plans were person centred and people and their relatives had been actively involved in developing their support plans.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the management team (team leaders, case managers and the registered manager). All staff received regular one to one supervision with their case manager.

Relatives, professionals and staff told us the service was responsive and well managed. The service sought people’s, their relatives and staff views and opinions and acted upon them.

Inspection areas



Updated 26 June 2018

The service was safe.

Staff understood how to identify abuse and the procedure for reporting any safeguarding concerns.

People�s medicines were managed and administered safely.

Detailed risk assessments were in place where risks had been identified and clear guidance for staff on how to minimise those risks.

Staff were recruited safely.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood and applied its principles. However, not all capacity assessments were in place. We have made a recommendation about this.

People�s needs were assessed and care was planned to ensure it met their needs.

Staff were skilled and well trained. Additional specific training was sourced in response to people�s specific needs.

Staff received regular supervision and had a mentor.



Updated 26 June 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us the staff were kind and caring and provided respectful and dignified care.

The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people�s individual needs and how best to meet them.

The service promoted people�s independence.



Updated 26 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were personalised and gave clear guidance for staff on how to support people.

People, their relatives and staff knew how to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken.

People were treated as individuals and their diverse needs respected.



Updated 26 June 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had received good feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.