Archived: Creative Care Solutions (UK) Ltd

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what was observed, the records looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. People’s care plans included risk assessments which highlighted risks in specific areas, for example self-neglect and malnutrition. They contained actions to minimise these risks and keep people safe.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. We inspected the personnel files of support staff and found they contained all the information required by the regulations.

Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe the action they would take to ensure the safety of the people who use the service.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). A recent Supreme Court judgement had widened and clarified the definition of deprivation of liberty. The manager was aware of this judgement and how it may impact on supported living. They had been in contact with the local authority DoLS team. We were told that all service user reviews were now taking DoLS into consideration and assessed the potential need for an application. This was in accordance with advice from the local authority DoLS team.

People's records, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the services were accurate and fit for purpose.

Is the service effective?

People all had an individual support plan which set out their needs. People told us they and their relatives (if appropriate) were fully involved in the assessment of their health and support needs and had contributed to developing their care plan.

People we spoke with told us the staff were supportive and encouraged them to maintain their independence as much as possible.

People had access to a range of health care professionals. For example: doctors, community psychiatric nurses, psychologists, dentists and opticians. People’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us staff listened to them and took note of what they said. They told us they felt supported and felt confident in speaking out if they wanted something changed.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. Our discussions with people and the records we looked at, told us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected. One person told us “staff do a good job, they care about me.”

Is the service responsive?

People told us they were involved in reviewing their plans of care when their needs changed and if they wished they could involve their relatives.

Creative Care Solutions (UK) Ltd. had a system to assure the quality of service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed and action taken when necessary.

Trends in accidents and incidents had been monitored and action taken to prevent recurrence. Complaints were documented and investigated fully although none had been received since the last inspection in March 2014. People told us they knew who to make a complaint to and were confident actions would be taken appropriately.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and professionals to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The provider had quality assurance processes in place to ensure the service was run effectively. We saw quality questionnaires were given to people who use the service and their family. The responses were used to make changes to the service and improve the experience of individuals.

Staff had a good knowledge of their roles and responsibilities and could seek advice from senior staff and managers.

Staff had a good understanding of the service and the quality assurance processes in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

Support plans reflected the needs of the people using the service and were reviewed regularly. People were involved in planning their care and could make changes when necessary. One person told us the service was "flexible and supportive" and another person told us they felt the support was "very good and flexible for my needs".

There were appropriate arrangements in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults. All staff had either received training, or in the case of a new member of staff, were booked onto a training course. Staff we spoke with were clear about their responsibilities and the action they would take if they had concerns.

The provider had a robust interview and selection technique which actively involved people who use the service. However, the provider did not always undertake the appropriate background checks prior to new care staff taking up employment, to ensure the people who use the service were not placed at risk.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. These included spot checks as well as regular surveys of the people who use the service.

Everyone we spoke to was complimentary about the service calling it 'excellent', 'really supportive' and saying 'I like it' and 'they've always been there'.

People told us staff sought their consent and kept them informed about their care. One person told us 'yes they ask permission, it's common courtesy'.

Care plans reflected the support people told us they received and met people's needs. One person told us '(staff) supported me and got me on the college course. Now (staff) tutors me and I'm hoping to go back'.

There were arrangements in place to ensure medicines were kept and administered safely. People were supported to self administer their medicines safely. One person told us 'they sign the sheets and they supervise me putting it into the pill pot'.

Staff received appropriate training and professional development. Some of the words people used to describe staff were 'ok', 'alright', 'helpful' and 'kind'.

People we asked knew how to make a complaint and told us they felt listened to. One person told us about an issue they had raised with staff and said 'they did something about it straight away'.