Archived: Burgess Autistic Trust

At our last inspection on 13 and 14 April 2016 we found improvements were needed in relation to prescribed creams which were not stored securely in people's bedrooms, complaints were not always investigated and resolved within required timescales and systems to audit and check the service were not entirely effective as issues found at the inspection had not been identified by the provider.

At this inspection on 01 June 2017, we found improvements had been made in relation to management of medicines. Prescribed creams were stored securely in people’s bedrooms. Complaints were in investigated and resolved in good time and in line within the provider’s own timescales. Systems in place to check and audit the service were effective as areas that required improvement were identified and promptly addressed.

Burgess Autistic Trust provides personal care and support to people who live in the community and people who live in four supported living houses across South East London. On the day of our inspection there were 19 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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. However, on the day of the inspection the registered manager was unavailable. Instead, we spoke to the service co-ordinator.

Safeguarding adult's procedures were in place and staff knew how to safeguard people they supported. Staff were aware of the whistle-blowing procedure and said they would use it if they needed to. Medicine records showed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals. Risks to people were identified and monitored and provided clear information and guidance for staff on how to support people. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's care and support needs.

Staff had undertaken a programme of mandatory training. Staff were knowledgeable, although some staff had not had received the most recent refresher training for safeguarding, epilepsy and fire training. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and acted according to this legislation.

People were supported to have a balanced diet. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health.

Relatives said staff were very caring. People’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality was respected and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

People and their relatives’ were involved in their care planning. Care plans were easy to follow and reflected people's individual care needs and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis.

People were supported to participate in a range of different activities. Regular service user meetings were held where people were able to feedback to the manager and staff about things that were important to them. Relatives knew about the complaints procedure and said they would complain if they needed to and believed their complaints would be investigated and action taken if necessary.

Regular staff meetings took place. Regular relatives meetings had not taken place for some time to obtain feedback, but the service would be reinstating these meetings. People and their relatives’ feedback had been sought about the service through annual surveys. Staff said there was an open culture in the service and that the management team were supportive.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions arising from audits had been dealt with quickly.

Burgess Autistic Trust provides personal care and support to people who live in the community and people who live in supported living houses across South East London. On the day of our inspection there were 24 people using the service.

Burgess Autistic Trust had a registered manager in place. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

An aspect of the way the service managed medicines required improvement in that prescribed medicines were not stored securely in people’s bedrooms.

People using the service said they felt safe and that staff treated them well. Safeguarding adult's procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and there was an out of hours on call system.

The provider conducted appropriate recruitment checks before staff started work. The provider had carried out appropriate pre-employment checks to ensure staff were suitable and fit to support people using the service.

Staff training was mostly up to date however some mandatory and refresher training was due. Staff received appropriate supervision.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs. Staff were committed to offering people a good service that improved the quality of their lives and allowed them to be part of the wider community.

Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and how these should be met. People and relatives said staff looked after people in a way which was kind, caring and respectful. Staff knew how to ensure that people received care and support in a dignified way which maintained their privacy. People were supported to be independent where possible such as laying the table.

Complaints were not always investigated and resolved within required timescales.

People using the service and their relatives were involved in reviews of their care and support. The extent people were involved depended on their mental capacity and the complexity of their needs.

Support plans were reflective of people’s individual care needs and preferences. People’s cultural needs and religious beliefs were recorded to ensure that staff took account of people’s needs and wishes.

Support plans and risk assessments provided clear information and guidance for staff on how to support people using the service with their needs. People's care and support needs were reviewed regularly.

Relatives and people who used the service knew how to complain if they wished and were given the opportunity to voice their views

The provider sought people's views about how the care and support people received could be improved.

People and relatives said the service was well managed. People and their relatives were satisfied with the way the provider dealt with their concerns or issues and said senior staff were approachable and willing to listen.

Systems were in place to monitor and evaluate the quality and safety of the service and obtain feedback from people and staff.