Archived: Social Care Solutions Limited (Northampton)

Updated 28 April 2025

Date of Assessment: 30 April to 14 May 2025. We carried out a comprehensive assessment in response to concerns we had about the service. This was the first assessment for the service since registration in October 2023.

The service provides personal care for people with a learning disability and autistic people, some of whom also have a physical disability or sensory impairment. People are supported in a supported living ‘scheme’ with their own tenancy agreement from a landlord.

Not everyone who is supported by the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. At the time of our assessment there were 19 people being supported with personal care at 8 supported living schemes.

As part of our assessment, we visited the registered office and 7 supported living schemes. We assessed the service against the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider had failed to fully meet the principles of it.

People were not always supported to keep their homes safe and well maintained. We found that some people’s homes required redecoration and modernisation. Risks to people were not being effectively assessed and accidents, incidents and safeguarding practices were not well managed. Recruitment processes were in place, however, managers did not always have all the information they needed to make informed decisions about employing new staff. We identified shortfalls in staff training. Medicines were not being managed safely, and infection control practices were poor. Systems and processes in place were not implemented effectively to support learning and improve safety.

Staff did not always understand how to meet people’s current needs because people’s care plans and risk assessments were not up to date. Records showed a lack of involvement from people and their relatives in the assessment and review of people’s needs, this meant opportunities for people to have choice and control over their care and support were not maximised.

We found leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, or experience required to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness, and honesty. A staff member told us leaders were, “Not easily accessible.” We found junior leaders were enthusiastic and wanted to lead and learn, however, there was no effective leadership development to enable them to make meaningful change. Leaders did not have effective oversight of the service. Systems in place were not robust enough to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services being provided to people. Statutory notifications were either not submitted or there had been a delay in submitting them for abuse or allegations of abuse. Audits completed were ineffective.

The provider was found to be in breach of 5 legal regulations relating to dignity and respect, safe care and treatment, good governance, staffing, and fit and proper persons employed. We have issued a Warning Notice in relation to good governance whereby the provider must be compliant by 31 July 2025. We have also asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

The service has been rated inadequate overall. The service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provides a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
 

Updated 28 April 2025

The principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ were not always being met, as the model of care provided did not always allow people to live empowered lives with maximum choice and independence. 

People generally expressed they were happy with the care they received from the service; however, our assessment found the care did not meet expected standards. Feedback from people’s relatives was mixed regarding the care and support people received.

Positive comments from relatives, included, “My [relative] does not communicate [with words], so [they] communicate with gestures and body language, staff read [they] well.” Relatives also told us staff were, “Kind, caring, pleasant and welcoming.”

Some relatives told us they were aware of people’s care plans and were informed of any changes to people’s needs. For example, a relative told us, “If there was a problem, they [care provider] would ring straight away.” However, we found there was a lack of evidence to support that people, or their relatives had always been involved in planning or reviewing their care. Another relative told us, “[my parent] has been there [a number of years], and I have never been to a meeting.”

Some relatives felt the experience people received at the service was poor. A relative told us their loved one, “was dirty.” Another relative told us they had witnessed people being spoken to in a “really nasty” way and described their relative and the other person they lived with as, “very subdued.”

Some relatives shared concerns about the lack of management oversight of the service. One relative told us the service was, “not effective.” A relative said, “I don’t have confidence in the management.” Another relative said, “I don’t think it’s well-led but new people are in.”

Relatives told us they did not know the name of the manager leading the service. One relative said, “I don’t know the names of managers because they have changed.” Another relative told us, “There have been lots of changes, and I don’t know the names of managers.”

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used our short observational framework for assessment (SOFI) to observe people’s experience of the care they received. This showed staff knew people well, however, it also showed us that staff did not always interact with people other than when carrying out a task.