Archived: A Family's Best Friend

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection visit we found the service remained good.

Why the service is rated good.

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.

People continued to receive personalised care which was responsive to individual need. Staff had an excellent understanding of people’s individual needs so care could be provided with support which was individual to them. Services were flexible and people and their families could decide how and when their care was provided.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Consent to care and treatment was actively sought.

Systems, processes and practices were embedded to safeguard people from abuse and risk of harm. Good practice guidance had been followed to keep people safe.

People continued to receive support from a reliable staff team. We were told staff were always punctual and reliable.

The registered provider understood the importance of using technology to ensure effective and responsive care was provided. Technology was used to ensure care plans and associated documents were up to date and reflective of people’s care needs.

People and relatives told us staff were empathetic and motivated to provide compassionate care. There was an emphasis on privacy, dignity and human rights.

The registered provider was responsive in seeking feedback from people and relatives to ensure people were happy with the service provided. At the time of our inspection visit people and relatives told us they had no complaints about the service.

People and relatives and all agreed the service was well managed. Everyone praised the skills of the registered provider.

People and relatives praised the way in which safety and risk was managed.

Staff said they enjoyed working for A Familys Best Friend. They told us the registered provider was approachable, knowledgeable and committed to their work.

People received care which was regularly reviewed and support was based around good practice evidence. Staff were supported with continuous learning to ensure they had the correct skills to provide effective person-centred care.

Governance was embedded within the service and was based upon good practice guidance.

The registered provider understood the importance of providing holistic health care. We saw there was an emphasis on promoting independence and increasing community presence.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This was the services first inspection since its re- registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This was because the service had moved premises.

A Family’s Best Friend is a domiciliary care provider for children, young people and adults with disabilities. This may be through domiciliary care in the home or supporting the service user to leisure and extended educational activities out in the community. At the time of our inspection visit A Family’s Best Friend provided services to 38 people.

We were unable to speak to young people supported by the service because of their age, language or communication difficulties. Feedback about the service was received from young people’s parents.

The registered provider was an individual who also managed the service on a day to day basis. Registered providers 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.

We found recruitment procedures were safe with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff members commenced their employment. Staff spoken with told us their recruitment had been thorough and professional.

We found staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support young people with their care and support needs. The parent of one young person told us they couldn’t be happier with the service provided. The parent said, “The carer supporting [relative] has a beautiful rapport with them. [Relative] gets so excited when carer visits.”

Staff knew the young people they supported and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how young people and their family members wished their care and support to be delivered. The parents of three young people told us they had been involved in making decisions about the care provided.

The parents of the three young people we spoke with said staff supporting their relatives were polite, reliable and professional in their approach to their work. One parent said, “[Relative] can be a real handful. Our carer has been an absolute god send for us. [Relative] loves them.”

The three parents we spoke with told us they had every confidence their relatives were safely supported by the services carers. One parent said, “As a parent I have 100% confidence that [relative] is safe and protected as a vulnerable young person when supported by carer. Everything is spot on and I can’t wait for their next visit.”

The registered provider had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The registered provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to young people during the delivery of their care and recreational support. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care and support provided.

Staff responsible for assisting young people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. The parents of three young people told us they were happy with the support their [relatives] received with their medicines.

Staff supported young people with their dietary and fluid intake. The parent of one young person said, “Our carer supports [relative] with breakfast preparation. They know exactly what [relative] likes and wants.”

We spoke with the parents of three young people about the services complaints procedure. They told us they knew who to contact if they had any concerns.

The registered provider used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot checks and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.

The registered provider and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to young people in their care.