Lifeways SIL Limited (North West)

Updated 11 May 2018

We carried out this comprehensive inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 visit took place on 13 March 2018. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available.

Bluebell Court is a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people with mental health needs living in one of their specialist ‘extra care’ services. The main office base is at Bluebell Court in Blackpool where the overall management is carried out and documentation for all six services can be available. When we inspected there were six specialist extra care residences. Personal care was available as required in each one. Three people were receiving personal care from the service on the inspection.

Prior to our inspection visit we contacted several local authority and health services who commission with Bluebell Court. They told us they were satisfied with the care and support provided. We also contacted Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champions for health and social care. This gave us additional information about the service.

As part of the inspection we used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an adult social care inspection manager.

During the visit we spoke with a range of people about the service. They included two people who received personal care, the registered manager and six staff members.

We looked at care and medicine records of two people. We reviewed a variety of other records, including staff recruitment, training and personnel records of four members of staff and records relating to the management of the service. We checked staffing levels, arrangements for care and support. This enabled us to determine if people received the care and support they needed in a safe way.

Updated 11 May 2018

The inspection visit took place on 13 March 2018 and was announced.

Bluebell Court provides specialist support and recovery services for people with enduring mental health needs, supporting them to transition from Hospital, Secure and other institutional living environments to their own tenancy within the community. Bluebell Court is the registered office for regulated activity provided by SIL in the North of England. Each service is staffed 24/7 by a team of recovery support workers with an on-site manager and additional support is provided by an allocated mental health professional from within the quality and practice team. Bluebell Court is registered for the regulated activity of personal care, which could be provided at any of their services located in the north of the country. This care could also be provided elsewhere in the community if the service wanted to.

Bluebell Court provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own service. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service. Not everyone using Bluebell Court 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. 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

Three people received personal care from Bluebell Court when we inspected. During the inspection we spoke with two of them. They told us they felt safe and well supported by staff.

There were procedures in place to minimise the risk of unsafe care or abuse. Staff had received training and knew how to keep people safe. Risk assessments had been developed with each person. These enabled people to remain as independent as possible while reducing the risk of harm. Care plans were personalised, reflected people’s wishes and involved them and where appropriate, their relatives. These had been regularly reviewed.

Medicines were managed safely. They had been ordered appropriately, checked on receipt into the service, given as prescribed and stored and disposed of correctly. People received their medicines when needed and were supported to administer their own medicines if safe to do so. Appropriate records had been completed for entering, administering and disposing of medicines.

We saw from records and talking with staff that they had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. People told us there were sufficient staffing levels in place to provide the support people required to progress their independence and skills.

Staff had documented information about people's dietary needs. People were supported to shop for and prepare food where needed and encouraged to eat a balanced diet. People had access to and support to see healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met.

There were safe infection control procedures and practices and staff had received infection control training. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of the spreading infection.

We looked at how accidents and incidents were managed by the service. Where they occurred any accident or incident was reviewed to see if lessons could be learnt and to reduce the risk of further incidents.

We saw the service had carried out assessments of the environment and equipment when supporting people. Where potential risks had been identified action taken by the service had been recorded.

Staff provided care in a way that respected peoples’ dignity, privacy and independence. People told us staff treated them as individuals and delivered personalised care.

People had been supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were told they ways they could complain and were given information about how to complain. People we spoke with told us they felt able to complain and express any concerns. Where people raised a complaint appropriate action was taken. People also had information about support from an external advocate should this be required.

The registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of the service. These included regular audits and ways to seek people’s views about the service provided. People who were supported told us the management team staff were approachable and willing to listen.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.