Archived: Glenholme Living Solutions Limited

At the time of this inspection 16 people were being supported to live independently. Seven people were being supported at a location in Stevenage and nine people were being supported at a location in Hemel Hempstead. The people being supported by the service had complex needs including learning disabilities and Autism.

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.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

This service provides care and support to people living in two 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.

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.

When we previously inspected the service on 23 March 2016 we found that the care and support people received was not always safe. People`s consent and principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always followed by staff and the provider’s governance systems were not always effective to identify and improve shortfalls. Following the inspection the registered manager submitted an action plan which detailed how they were going to implement and sustain the necessary improvement.

At this inspection we found that the provider and the registered manager had made the necessary improvements to ensure people received care and support in a safe, effective and personalised way.

People told us they felt safe with the support they received from the staff. Staff had been trained and appropriately supported to carry out their roles effectively. They knew how to safeguard people from avoidable harm and about the potential risks and signs of abuse. Risks to people's health, well-being or safety were assessed and regularly reviewed to take account of people's changing needs and circumstances. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment practices were followed to help make sure that staff were suitable for the roles they performed. We found that staff followed best practice guidance when supporting people to take their medicines.

Staff took appropriate actions to protect people from the risk of infection by using appropriate hand washing techniques when supporting people with the preparation of their meals. The registered manager and the provider demonstrated an open culture of learning from complaints and previous shortfalls identified.

People told us they were asked for their permission before staff assisted them with support. We saw that people had signed their own care records or where it was appropriate people`s relatives were involved in their care .Staff followed the principles of MCA to help ensure the support people received was in their best interest.

People and their relatives told us that the staff providing support to people were kind and compassionate. Staff respected people’s dignity and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible. People received support from consistent and reliable staff members. People had regular opportunities to feedback about the service and to participate in reviews of their support needs.

People were supported and encouraged to pursue their hobbies and interests, and to be actively involved in the community and participate in a range of activities which they enjoyed.

People and their relatives felt that the registered manager was approachable with any concerns. All the people we spoke with told us that they felt that Glenholme Living Solutions was well managed. The registered manager demonstrated a good knowledge of the staff they employed and people who used the service. Staff told us that the senior staff team were approachable, supportive and that they could talk to them at any time.

There was a programme of checks undertaken routinely to help ensure that the service provided for people was safe.

Green Oak living solutions provides care and support to people living in their own homes within a supported living complex. There were 7 people being supported at one service and nine at the other on the day of our inspection. The people being supported by the service had complex needs including learning disabilities and Autism.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 6 June 2013 the service was found to be meeting the standards we inspected. At this inspection we found that the provider had continued to meet the standards, although improvements were required in particular regarding recording consent, record keeping and the safe storage of confidential records.

People were protected from the risk of potential abuse because staff had received training and demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognise and report concerns. Risks to people were assessed and reviewed and actions were in place to reduce risk where possible without restricting people’s right to make informed decisions and live an active life as independently as they were able to.

People`s consent was not always sought in a consistent way and was not recorded in care plans and had not been reviewed. People we spoke told us staff explained what support they were going to provide to people but did not fully understand that this was ‘obtaining their consent’.

People told us staff were kind and caring in their approach and always treated them with respect. Staff promoted people`s dignity and respected their privacy.

People had their care and supported reviewed however this was infrequent and not always obvious when changes to peoples care and support needs had been identified or implemented. Where appropriate people`s relatives and or care coordinators were involved to ensure their needs were met at all times.

People were supported by appropriate levels of staff at all times and who had the skills and experience. However recruitment practices were not always consistently followed to help ensure that potential staff were suitable to work in an environment with vulnerable people. Staff received regular support, and some training and supervision; however records relating to staff training were not up to date, so we could not be confident that staff had completed all the training.

People were supported to eat and drink a balanced and nutritious diet to help keep them healthy, and had regular access to various health care professionals when required.

People were supported to take their medicines by staff who had been trained in the safe administration of medicines. In some cases people were supported to take their medicines independently and this was kept under regular review. However medicine administration records were written up by support staff who were unfamiliar with prescribing protocols

There were some systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service; however these required improvements to improve their effectiveness.

People were supported and encouraged to pursue their hobbies and interests, and to be actively involved in the community and participate in a range of activities which they enjoyed.

We found that people had received appropriate care and support and had regularly accessed local community amenities and facilities. The agency had a system in place to manage and administer medicines safely. There were effective recruitment procedures to ensure that the required checks were carried out before an offer of employment was made, and that the staff had the qualifications, skills and experience for the work they had to perform. Appropriate records had been maintained and had been kept securely.