Archived: Southdown Support

People who use the service had a variety of needs, including complex physical disabilities, learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. The support people needed ranged from one to one support, 24 hours a day, to five hours of outreach support over a week. People lived in a variety of accommodation ranging from self-contained flats to house shares. The provider was also the landlord at 18 out of the 27 supported living schemes Southdown Support provided a service to. Each of the supported living schemes had a separate office where the manager who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the scheme, and other staff, were based.

The service had a registered manager. 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 were safe. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and what they should do if they thought someone was at risk. Risks to individuals were well managed and people were able to stay safe without having their freedoms restricted. Managers and staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged positive risk taking. Incidents and accidents were well managed and staff understood the importance of learning from incidents, so they could make sure they did not re-occur.

People were treated with dignity and respect by kind and caring staff. Staff had a good understanding of the care and support needs of every person living in the home. People had developed positive relationships with staff and there was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere in the supported living schemes we visited. People were well supported to do the things that were important to them, such as going to work or college. People’s social and spiritual needs were met.

Person centred care was important to the service and staff made sure people were at the centre of their practice. Care plans focused on the whole person, and assessments and plans were regularly updated.

Staff had the skills they needed to meet people’s needs effectively, and they were well supported with training, supervision and appraisal. Training was up to date and the provider made sure any training needs were identified. There was always enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Recruitment practices were robust and all of the relevant checks were completed for all staff before they began work. People’s medicines were managed safely and staff understood when they needed to give people medicines on an ‘as and when basis’, and how some people communicated non-verbally this was what they needed.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2015) and gained consent from people in line with legislation. Staff made sure they asked for people’s consent before providing any support.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and staff helped people to choose their food, go shopping and cook when needed. People were supported with healthy eating and to maintain a healthy weight. Everyone was supported to maintain good health and all of the appropriate referrals were made to health care professionals when required.

People and those important to them, such as their relatives or GP, were asked for feedback about the quality of the service. Any feedback received was acted on, and any concerns were dealt with quickly before the formal complaints procedure was needed. The registered manager and staff knew what they should do if anyone made a complaint.

The service was well led. The registered manager and provider regularly completed robust quality assurance checks, to make sure the good standards of care were maintained. There was an open culture and staff said they felt well motivated and valued by all of the managers.

We saw that people experienced safe and effective care based on detailed care plans and risk assessments that met individual needs.

People who used the service were protected from abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training in safeguarding adults. People told us that if they had any concerns they would report them to a manager or senior person on duty.

Staff received ongoing training and supervision which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.

People's needs were recorded in a person centred plan of care that was kept under review. Risks to people's safety were assessed and plans to reduce and monitor risks to both people using the service and staff were recorded.

We reviewed records which showed us that people were protected from abuse and their care was planned and delivered in a safe manner.

In order to protect the people using the service, we saw that the agency carried out a rigorous staff recruitment process and staff received training and support suitable to their role.

There were processes in place to monitor the quality of service being provided and people were involved through questionnaires and quality audit visits.

Comments from carers of people using the service included. 'The office is helpful and the staff are very good. They care for X very well. Good care is the essence of what they do.'