You are here

Archived: GS Social Care Solutions Ltd Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

We carried out an announced inspection of GS Social Care Solutions Ltd on 09 and 10 November 2016. The service had last been inspected in July 2013 when we found the service to be compliant with all regulations assessed at that time.

GS Social Care Solutions Ltd is a specialist domiciliary care agency providing support for children, adults and older people within their own homes or out in the community. The service also offers a 2 bedded respite service which caters for ages 0 – 25. ‘The Meadows’ is predominantly for overnight stays and is aimed at people with learning disability, autism, complex health needs or physical disability. A charity set up by the organisation, the Elysium Community Centre, is also run from the same address and includes a large sport hall, which provides activities that people using the service could access. At the time of the inspection a total of 88 people used the service, however only 32 people were in receipt of regulated activities and therefore included in the inspection.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manger 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

A large proportion of the people supported by the service were children or young adults, many with limited or no verbal communication skills. As a result we were only able to speak to relatives of people who used the service. All the relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the service being provided and their family member felt safe as a result of the care and support received. We saw the service had suitable safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff had all received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and were able to demonstrate a good understanding of how to report both safeguarding and whistleblowing concerns.

Both staff and relatives of people using the service told us enough staff were employed to meet peoples’ needs. Staff told us enough time had been allocated for travelling between calls and many worked solely with the same person, which ensured consistency. Each person using the service had a small team of staff that supported them. We saw that any sickness or other absence had been covered by another member of the team, or if this hadn’t been possible, the person and/or their relative had been consulted with before an unfamiliar member of staff used. On occasions we saw that the care-coordinator responsible for a person’s care, had completed the shift rather than use someone unfamiliar.

We saw that robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff working for the service met the required standards. This involved all staff having a DBS (Disclosure and Baring Service) check, up to three references and work history documented. A DBS check helps a service to ensure the applicant’s suitability to work with vulnerable people.

Staff reported that they received an appropriate level of training to carry out their role. We saw all staff completed a comprehensive induction training programme, followed by a flexible period of time shadowing experienced care staff, before being allowed to work with people who used the service. We saw the service had systems in place to ensure that staff received regular refresher training to ensure their skills and knowledge remained up to date. Staff told us that training was encouraged and they could request to attend any courses or training of interest.

Most of the relatives we spoke with confirmed they had taken responsibility for administering medicines, however positive feedback was given where staff had been involved. Within The Meadows we saw there were systems in place to ensure safe medicines management was maintained. All medicines ha

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was safe

The service had systems and procedures in place to protect people from harm and keep them safe.

Everyone we spoke with told us enough staff were employed to meet people’s needs. This was further evidenced through observation of staff rotas.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place and staff were aware of the process and how to raise concerns.

The service had appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure safe medicines management.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was effective

Staff reported receiving enough training to carry out their roles successfully and were provided with regular support and supervision.

The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005)

People or their relative had consented to their care and decisions had been made in their best interest.

Staff completed regular supervision meetings, which allowed them to receive feedback on their performance as well as bring up any issues they wanted to.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was caring

Relatives we spoke with were positive about the care and support being provided; this was also reflected in the comments on all quality assurance questionnaires.

People and/or their relatives told us that staff were kind and caring and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff were knowledgeable about the importance of promoting independence and providing choice

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was responsive

Care plans were person-centred and individualised with information about people’s life history, likes, dislikes and how they wished to be supported.

The service had a detailed complaints policy and everyone had a copy of this, along with information about how to make a complaint and the necessary forms.

People were asked to provide feedback about the standard of care they received through on-going care reviews.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was well-led

Quality assurance procedures were in place, to ensure good practice was maintained.

Spot checks and competency checks were carried out by care co-ordinators to ensure staff worked to high standards and address any issues noted with care provision.

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the service and felt supported in their roles.