Archived: Royal Mencap Society - North Hants, Beds and Bucks Domiciliary Care

Updated 14 February 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type:

Royal Mencap Society - Oxford are a domiciliary care agency (DCA). The service provides personal care services to people with learning disabilities in supported living arrangements. There was a registered manager. 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.

Notice of inspection:

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure the management would be in the office. We visited the office location on 18 December 2018 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and the service provider. The registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the notifications we had received for this service. Notifications are information about important events the service is required to send us by law.

We contacted 4 people and three relatives to gather their views about the support received. During the office site visit we looked at records, which included six people’s care and medicines records. We checked recruitment, training and supervision records for four staff. We also looked at a range of records about how the service was managed. We also spoke with the registered manager, four service managers, an administrator and four care staff.

After our site visit we contacted commissioners to obtain their views about the service.

Updated 14 February 2019

About the service:

Royal Mencap Society - Oxford are a domiciliary care agency (DCA). The service provides personal care services to people living with learning disabilities in supported living arrangements. At the time of our inspection 15 people received personal care as the regulated activity.

What life is like for people using this service:

People received compassionate support from caring and committed staff. People told us staff were kind and respectful and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff knew what was important to people and ensured people’s confidentiality and privacy were respected and their independence was promoted.

People were supported to access health services when required. People complimented the continuity of care provided by skilled and competent staff. Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff had access to effective supervision.

People received support that met their needs and was in line with care plans and good practice. People were supported to maintain good diet and hydration. People's rights to make their own decisions were respected.

The provider followed safe recruitment processes. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Where risks to people had been identified, assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage these risks. People received their medicine as prescribed.

The service was well run. Staff and the registered manager shared the visions and values of the service and these were embedded within service delivery. There were systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning from audits took place which promoted people's safety and quality of life.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published 19 October 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will monitor all intelligence received about the service to inform the assessment of the risk profile of the service and to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

More information is in Detailed Findings below.