Archived: Entirety LLP

At our last inspection of the service in March 2016 we rated the service ‘Good’. The service had been operating at that time at a location based in London Borough of Croydon. In August 2016 the service moved to its current location based in the London Borough of Sutton. The rating for the service was not affected by this change.

This inspection took place on 7 November 2018. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going 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.

The service continued to provide care and support that was personalised and tailored to people’s needs. People received support that had been planned and agreed with them. Their choices for how support was provided were respected and staff delivered this in line with people’s wishes.

Staff knew people well, understood their needs and how these should be met. Staff supported people to take part in a wide range of activities or pursue interests that were important to them. They encouraged people to be involved in all aspects of their care and support to promote their independence. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity and privacy when providing support.

Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. Staff communicated well with others involved in people’s care so that they were well informed about people’s health and wellbeing, particularly if there were concerns about this. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s healthcare needs and how they should be supported with these in a timely and appropriate way. People received their prescribed medicines as required.

Staff were trained to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns about people to the appropriate person and agencies. Staff understood the risks posed to people and followed current guidance about how these should be minimised to keep people safe from injury or harm. People were safe because staff followed good practice to ensure risks were minimised from poor hygiene and cleanliness.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The provider maintained recruitment and selection processes and carried out appropriate checks to verify staff's suitability to support people. Staff received relevant training and had work objectives that were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support. These were monitored and reviewed through regular supervision and staff team meetings.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and supported people in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Relatives and representatives of people were satisfied with the care and support provided. They and staff spoke positively about managers and described them as accessible and supportive. The provider had aims and standards for the service and communicated to people what they should expect from staff in terms of quality of care.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review the quality of service and to deal with any complaints made about the service. Records relating to people, staff and to the management of the service were up to date and well maintained.

The service continued to have a registered manager in post. The registered manager was aware of their registration responsibilities particularly with regards to submission of statutory notifications about key events that occurred at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The Entirety Partnership is a service which provides personal care to young adults in their own home. At the time of our visit there were three people using the service.

Some people using the service were unable to communicate verbally, we therefore spent time speaking to their relatives.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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.

People were safe. Staff had good knowledge of how to identify abuse and the action to take if abuse was suspected. Care was planned and delivered to ensure people were protected against avoidable harm. People received their medicines safely.

Staff arrived on time and stayed for the allotted time. People were cared for by a sufficient number of suitable staff to keep them safe and meet their needs. There was continuity of care and staff understood people’s needs. People received the help they needed to maintain good health.

People were cared for by staff who had the necessary experience and knowledge to support them to have a good quality of life. Staff understood the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it applied to people in their care.

People were treated with respect, compassion and kindness. People’s individuality was at the centre of how their care was delivered. They were fully involved in making decisions about their care. People were supported to participate in a variety of activities in the community which helped to prevent them becoming socially isolated.

The registered manager understood what was necessary to provide a good quality service and had a variety of systems in place to regularly check and monitor the quality of care people received.