You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 May 2018

The inspection took place on 19 and 20 March 2018 and was announced.

The last inspection took place in August 2016 where we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ and found a breach of three regulations relating to Safe Care and Treatment, Safeguarding and Good Governance. At this inspection we found the service had made improvements in these areas and was no longer in breach of any regulations.

This service provides care and support to people living in three ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home 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 looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 10 people.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A registered manager was in place alongside the service 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 protected from abuse whilst using the service. Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood how to keep people safe. Where concerns had been raised, we saw these had been dealt with appropriately by the service. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and care plans put in place for staff to follow. People were supported to take positive risks to ensure they could access the community and achieve their goals.

Overall, there were enough staff to ensure people received safe care and support, although some concerns were raised about staffing levels at one of the supported living houses. We saw plans were in place to address this. Safe recruitment procedures were operated to help ensure staff were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

Staff received a range of suitable training relevant to their role as a learning disabilities support worker. Staff said they felt well supported by the management team and happy in their role.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were involved in decision making and staff maximised people’s choice and control over their lives.

The service worked with a range of health professionals to help ensure individual needs were met. Advice from professionals was embedded into plans of care and systems were in place to transfer care plans and other key information between services.

People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. We observed staff had built a good rapport with people and knew them well. People’s independence was promoted and the service worked with people to build their confidence.

People’s care needs were assessed and detailed care plans put in place for staff to follow. These were subject to regular review. People had monthly review meetings to discuss their goals; however, these had fallen behind in some cases due to team leader absence.

People had access to a good range of activities and social opportunities. People were enabled to undertake the things they wanted to do on a daily basis.

Relatives and staff told us people had achieved positive support outcomes since being supported by the service demonstrating that it was effective in its purpose, of providing assistance to live independently. We found a person centred culture within the service focused on meeting people’s individual needs and preferences.

Systems were in place to check how the service was operating to ensure it maintained safe and effective working practices.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 May 2018

The service was safe.

People were safe using the service. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and plans put in place to protect them. Staff understood people well.

People received their medicines as prescribed and clear records of the support provided were maintained.

Overall, we concluded there were sufficient staff to ensure appropriate care was provided. Staff were recruited safely to ensure they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 May 2018

The service was effective.

People achieved good health and support outcomes from the service.

Staff received a range of training and support tailored to the needs of the people they were supporting. Permanent staff knew people well and their individual needs. Some concerns were raised about the number of agency staff used in some areas of the service.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s healthcare needs were assessed and plans of care put in place to ensure healthcare needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 May 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives spoke positively about staff. We saw staff treated people with kindness and compassion. Staff were passionate about the people they supported.

Staff had developed strong relationships with people and knew them well.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People and relatives spoke positively about the care and said needs were met. People’s needs were fully assessed and detailed care plans put in place taking account of people’s individual preferences.

People had access to a good range of activities and community involvement was encouraged.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 May 2018

The service was well led.

People and relatives spoke positively about the way the service was run. Staff said morale was good. It was evident there was a person centred culture embedded within the service, committed to delivering support in line with people’s individual preferences.

Systems to check the service were in place and people’s feedback was valued and used to improve the service.