You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 February 2017

We inspected the service on 6 January 2017 and the visit was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of our inspection because we needed to be sure somebody would be available.

Support and Connections Office provides personal care and support for people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection one person was receiving personal care and support. The provider told us that they were not looking to support a large number of people in the future and would remain small so that they could provide a quality service.

There was a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 person using the service felt safe with the support offered from staff. Staff knew their responsibilities to support people to remain safe including notifying the registered manager of any concerns. Risks to the person’s health and well-being were assessed to give staff guidance about how to support them to reduce the likelihood of harm. No accidents or incidents had occurred. The provider had processes in place for staff to follow should they need to. The provider had a plan to support people to remain safe during emergencies, such as the loss of the person’s regular staff due to illness.

Staff numbers were sufficient to make sure that the person using the service received their care calls. New staff employed by the provider were checked for their suitability. This was to ensure that people were protected from those who should not work in the caring profession.

Staff were not currently required to offer their support to administer medicines. They had received training to administer people’s medicines and felt confident to do so. The provider had procedures for staff to follow should people require assistance with the handling of their medicines in the future.

Staff had the required skills and knowledge to support people. They received guidance and training relevant to the support that was required to be undertaken. For example, staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff knew about a person’s food preferences and their eating requirements. The provider had made available to staff members information on health conditions that supported them to promote a person’s health and well-being.

Staff knew to ask the person for their consent when care and support was offered. Staff understood their responsibilities under the MCA including supporting people to make their own decisions.

Staff were kind and offered their support in a caring manner. Staff knew how to protect people’s privacy and dignity. The preferences of the person using the service were known by staff including their wish to be as independent as possible.

The person using the service was involved and contributed to the planning and review of their support. The care and support offered was in line with their preferences.

Staff arrived at the agreed times. The person received care centred on them as an individual and spent their time in ways that were important to them.

The person using the service knew how to make a complaint should they have needed to. The provider had made information on how to complain easier for people to understand by using pictures.

The person receiving the service and their relative felt that the service was well-led. The provider had plans to seek feedback on the service.

The provider had aims and objectives for the service that were known by staff. This included placing people at the centre of their care and support.

Staff felt supported and received good support from the registered manager. Staff understood their responsibilities including reporting the

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 February 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew their responsibilities to support people to remain safe. They knew the signs that could indicate a person was at risk of abuse. Risks to a person’s health and well-being were assessed to reduce the likelihood of an accident or incident occurring.

The provider followed their recruitment processes to check the suitability of prospective staff.

Staff did not assist with the administration of medicines. The provider had procedures in place if this was required in the future.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training and guidance so that they had the required skills and knowledge.

Staff asked for consent before providing care and support. The person using the service was supported to make decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff knew about their responsibilities under the Act.

Staff knew about the person’s preferences and offered their support to enable them to eat well. Staff promoted the health and well-being of the person they supported.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 February 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and offered their support in a caring manner. They knew how to protect people’s dignity and privacy.

Staff knew the person they were supporting including their background and levels of independence.

The person receiving the service was involved in decisions about their care and support. The registered manager had made information on advocacy services available.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 February 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff provided their care and support at agreed times and were punctual.

The person receiving the service contributed to the planning and review of their care and support. They received support based on their preferences.

The person knew how to make a complaint should they have needed to.

Well-led

Updated 10 February 2017

The person receiving the service was involved in the running of the service.

Staff received good support and knew their responsibilities.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities.

The provider had some checks in place to monitor the quality of the service.