Archived: Options Autism Outreach Support Service - North

At the last inspection which took place on 27 May 2016, the service was rated 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 ongoing 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.

This service provides personal care to people living in their own homes and flats. It also provides support for people living in supported living settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises for supported living; this inspection looked at people's care and support.

At the time of the inspection, a total of 15 people were receiving care and support from the service, four of these people received support with personal care. We were unable to speak to the majority of people who used the service as they were attending other care provision or accessing their social activities. People who received support from the service had limited time allocated to do this, so chose not to speak with us during the inspection and access their planned activities. During the inspection we spoke with one person who was visiting the office.

People continued to feel safe and were protected from abuse because staff understood how to keep them safe, staff were able to discuss the processes they should follow if an allegation of abuse was made. All staff informed us concerns would be followed up if they were raised. People received their medicines safely as prescribed.

There were enough suitable trained staff to meet people's needs. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive safe care.

Relatives and professionals told us, staff were extremely compassionate, kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people using the service. Staff knew people well and promoted their dignity and respected their privacy.

Care plans detailed and provided staff with guidance on how to meet people's individual needs.

People were supported to eat and drink according to their likes and dislikes. People who lacked capacity had decisions made in line with current legislation. People were 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.

The service had an open culture which encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive improvement. People were supported to engage in their preferred activity programmes. People knew how to complain and there were a range of opportunities for them to raise concerns with the registered manager and designated staff.

Staff continued to support people to book and attend appointments with healthcare professionals, and supported them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The service worked with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care and support. There were policies in place that ensured people would be listened to and treated fairly if they complained about the service. Quality monitoring was carried out to identify any shortfalls within the service and how the service could improve.

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.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The office for the service is located in the administration building of the Options Roxby site on the outskirts of the village of Roxby, close to the town of Scunthorpe.

We undertook this announced inspection on the 27 May 2016. This is the first inspection since the new provider registered with the Care Quality Commission in August 2014. The service has only recently in the last month started to provide personal care to people living in their own homes.

At the time of our inspection one person received personal care support and a further six people were being supported with shopping, activities and independence skills. We were unable to speak to people who used the service as they were attending other care provision or accessing their social activities. People who received support from the service had limited time allocated to do this, so chose not to speak with us during the inspection and access their planned activities.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

We found staff were recruited in a safe way; all checks were in place before they started work and they received an in depth comprehensive induction. Staffing was flexible and was provided on an individual needs led basis to meet people’s care and support needs.

Staff received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They knew what to do if they had concerns and there were policies and procedures in place to guide them when reporting issues of potential abuse.

The registered manager ensured staff had a clear understanding of people’s support needs whilst recognising their individual qualities and attributes. Staff were positive about the support they received from their manager.

Records showed people had assessments of their needs and support plans were produced; these showed people and their relatives had been consulted and involved in this process. We observed people received care that was person-centred and support plans provided staff with information about how to support people in line with their personal wishes and preferences.

Risk assessments were completed to guide staff in how to minimise risks and potential harm. Staff took steps to minimise risks to people’s wellbeing without taking away people’s rights to make decisions.

Staff had received training in legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Health Act 1983. They were aware of the need to gain consent when delivering care and support and what to do if people lacked capacity to agree to it.

People who used the service were supported to engage in a number of activities both within the service and the local community. They were encouraged to pursue hobbies, social interests, further education and maintain their independence.

There was a complaints procedure in place which was available in a suitable format which enabled people who used the service to access this if needed.

Staff told us the registered manager was visible and accessible within the service and they worked well together as a team.