Archived: S & W Independent Living

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe? People told us they felt safe. One person and told us, "The staff are excellent. I know the staff who come and they look after me well." Procedures were in place to protect people and staff understood how to ensure people they supported were safe.

We saw that policies and procedures were in place about receiving, administering and storing medication. This meant people were protected because the service provided instructions so that staff handled medication safely. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives. The provider set the staff rotas, they took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Is the service effective? People's health and care needs were assessed. People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs. People told us that they were happy with the care they received. It was clear from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who used the service. We saw evidence that demonstrated staff were provided with regular formal supervision. Staff told us that they were supported by the manager who enabled and encouraged them to undertake appropriate training on a regular basis.

Is the service caring? We spoke with staff who told us they cared about the people they supported. People's preferences, interests, goals and individual needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. The assessment, care planning and review systems in place promoted peoples well-being and safety.

Is the service responsive? People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People could be assured that complaints were investigated and action taken as necessary. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received appropriate care.

Is the service well-led? The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that problems and opportunities to improve the service were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.

We saw that improvements were being made to the way that care was planned and that information had been added to their care files about people's health needs. The manager was compiling new care plans for people that were detailed and personalised. Risks were assessed and managed and people's health needs were being included in their care plans.

We found that people's consent was being obtained for their care and support at the service.

We saw that records were generally complete and accurate and that they were stored and retained in line with requirements.

We saw evidence that feedback was sought about people's care including regular questionnaires. We saw, however, that although some measures were in place for monitoring the quality of the service, there was no effective system for identifying and managing risks.

We did not speak to people who used the agency at this visit but we did at our previous visit where people and their relatives told us they were pleased with the care provided.

At this visit we found that the provider had taken steps to ensure staff recruitment checks were completed. Where there had been gaps in staff files steps had been taken to retrospectively complete the required checks. One file of a recently employed staff ember confirmed that all checks were in place before they commenced work.

During our visit we spoke with the provider and two staff. All confirmed that there had been an improvement in the level of training staff received. Additionally the planning of future was being monitored. Whilst not all training had been fully delivered there was training sessions booked to ensure staff would receive relevant training.

People and relatives we spoke with confirmed that they were involved in care planning. One relative told us they had 'Never had concerns and couldn't be more pleased'.

Staff were suitably trained and had access to information about medicines. Where people had the capacity to be involved in taking their own medicines this was respected.

We found that there were not robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Some training had been delivered to staff however there were significant gaps in staff training. People and relatives we spoke with were positive about the support and care they received from staff. People told us the service was a reliable one with people and relatives telling us they 'Could not wish for better'.

There were suitable arrangements in place to store people's records securely to protect their confidentiality. We found that there were not procedures in place to suitably dispose of records within appropriate timescales.