Background to this inspection
Updated
28 April 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place on 16 & 17 March 2016 and was announced. We told the provider in advance so they had time to arrange for us to speak with people who used the service and to arrange for staff to be available to speak with us. The inspection was conducted by one inspector.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at information received from local authority commissioners. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services for people and fund the care provided. We also looked at statutory notifications sent to us by the service. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.
We reviewed the information in the provider’s information return (PIR). This is a form we asked the provider to send to us before we visited. The PIR asked the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked the information our and found it did not consistently reflect what we saw during our inspection visit.
During our inspection visit, we spoke with two people who received care and support in their own homes. With people’s agreement, we spent time observing interactions between people and staff whilst we spoke with them in their flats. We spoke with two relatives. We also spoke to the registered manager, team leader and four care staff.
We reviewed three people’s care plans, to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We looked at other records related to people’s care and how the service operated to check how the provider gathered information to improve the service. This included medicine records, staff recruitment records, the provider’s quality assurance audits and records of complaints.
Updated
28 April 2016
This inspection took place on 16 and 17 March 2016 and was announced. We told the provider in advance so they had time to arrange for us to speak with people who used the service and to arrange for staff to be available to speak with us.
Learning Disabilities Supported Living Service Coventry provides personal care across four supported living locations to people with a learning disability in their own homes. Some people require 24 hour care. At the time of our inspection, six people were being supported with their personal care.
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. The registered manager had been in post since February 2016.
People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. Relatives also felt confident people were safe. The provider acted on concerns raised and ensured staff followed safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified and minimised however some risk assessment monitoring forms were not up to date. Staff supported people according to their individual needs and encouraged their independence.
People were supported with their medicines by staff who were trained and competent to do this. People told us their medicines were given at the prescribed times. Checks were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely and the registered manager was introducing more robust auditing of medicine charts to ensure consistency of recording.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs effectively and the provider was recruiting new members of staff to fill vacancies. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability to support people who used the service. Staff told us they had not been able to start work until these checks had been completed.
People told us staff asked for consent before supporting them with care. People were able to make their own decisions and staff respected their right to do so. Staff and the registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).
People and relatives told us staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. We observed this in interactions between people, and records confirmed how people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. For example, they were supported to maintain any activities, interests and relationships that were important to them.
People had access to health professionals when needed and we saw the care and support provided followed their recommendations. People’s care records helped staff to deliver personalised care and gave staff information about people’s communication, their likes, dislikes and preferences. However, these were not consistently reviewed and kept up to date. People were involved in how their care and support was delivered.
People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests both within and outside their home. Activities were arranged according to people’s individual preferences, needs and abilities.
People were supported to have a nutritious diet, had a choice of food, and were encouraged to have enough to drink to maintain their health and well-being.
People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns with staff but did not know who the current registered manager was. They felt staff listened to them and responded in a timely way; however we found complaints were not recorded. Staff told us the management team were approachable; however there had been recent changes in the management of the service.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the care and support provided but the provider had not consistently assessed this so that improvements were not always made for the benefit of people who used the service.
People and their relatives told us their views and opinions of the service had not been recently sought through formal questionnaires or surveys, but they regularly discussed any concerns with staff.