Updated 1 May 2025
The service is a supported living service providing support to autistic people or people with a learning disability who require assistance in their own home. At the time of our assessment 3 people were being supported by the service with personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We carried out our on-site assessment on 07 May and 14 May 2025 and undertook observations. An Expert by Experience was part of the assessment team and they undertook calls to relatives on 15 May 2025. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The assessment concluded on 28 May 2025 when we provided feedback to the management team.
People had detailed care plans which were person centred and outlined people’s preferences and how best to communicate with the person.
Some people being supported could become anxious and the provider employed a specialist behavioral advisor to guide staff and formulate a positive care plan which set out what signs of distress they should be aware of and strategies that staff should use both at the time of the incident and subsequently.
There were some capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place, but this was still a work in progress and had not been fully completed. The provider told us that they would take action to address this. It was not always clear how people’s aspirations and goals were being monitored to ensure that they had good access to their local community and a full life. People spent significant periods doing in house activities such as listening to music and watching TV and some relatives expressed concerns about people’s sedentary lifestyle.
There were systems in place such as family forums to enable people to give feedback on the service, but we were not clear how this information was collated and used to drive improvement.
The provider had a clear vision for the service based on individuality and person centred care. However, the service had been without a registered manager for some time although one has recently been appointed. This is still a relatively new service and there was a recognition that there is further development work to do. The provider had a quality monitoring system in place which included audits and compliance checks, however further efforts are needed to engage with relatives and incorporate their views into the development of the service and existing action plan.
People were supported by a team of staff who had been through a robust recruitment process. There were enough staff to support people, and all staff received an induction and ongoing training. However not all staff had completed training in diabetes care and the provider agreed to ensure staff received the training relevant to their role. Staff received regular appraisals, and their practice was observed to ensure that they were competent to fulfil duties such as medicine administration.
The provider shared concerns appropriately and staff told us that they would not hesitate to raise concerns and were confident that the provider would take appropriate action.
Staff worked in a proactive way to ensure continuity of care when people moved between services. Incidents and accidents were reviewed, and risk assessments and associated management plans were person centred and showed how people could be supported in the least restrictive way.
Staff ensured people lived in clean and well maintained homes and escalated any maintenance issues on people’s behalf.