You are here

Archived: Garland Support Good

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

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 13 July 2018

During a routine inspection

Garland Support is a supported living service for adults who have physical or learning disabilities and live in their own homes. At the time of this inspection there were five people with disabilities who received a range of support from the service, including personal care. Our inspection focussed on the support given to these five people. The service also provided support to people who did not require personal care. This part of the service is not covered by CQC legislation and therefore was not included in the inspection.

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.

We checked the service was working in line with ‘Registering the right support’, which makes sure services for people with a learning disability and/or autism receive services are developed in line with national policy - including the national plan, Building the right support - and best practice. For example, how the service ensured care was personalised, people’s independence and links with their community.


Why the service is rated Good

People and their relatives told us the service was safe. Robust systems, processes and practices were in place to protect people from the risks including the risk of abuse, falls, fire and infection. Staff had received training on safeguarding. Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and staff had been given information and training about these as well. Staff understood specific health conditions and knew how to recognise signs of illness and when to seek medical intervention. People were supported to manage their medicines safely. The provider had systems in place to ensure that lessons were learnt and improvements made. As a result they had a low level of incidents and accidents.

Care was taken to recruit and select the right staff for the job. Recruitment processes helped the provider choose applicants with the right values and caring qualities for the job. A person told us “They are marvellous. Always kind.” There were enough staff employed to ensure that people always received support at the right times, and by staff they knew. A relative told us “[…] has a steady, regular staff team. Staff have got to know him. Staff have managed his behaviours well.”

People continued to receive a service that was effective. People told us they were very happy with the support they received. Each person received a timetable each week, in a format they could understand, to let them know who would be visiting them and at what times. Staff told us there were effective systems in place to manage their weekly rotas and ensure they knew who they were visiting each week, and when. The service was reliable.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and support. Staff received induction and ongoing training and updates on a range of topics relevant to the needs of the people they supported. They were also supported to gain relevant qualifications and to attend courses and training sessions to enable them to improve their knowledge and skills. A relative told us they were confident the staff were well trained, saying “I think they are a high calibre of staff.”

Consent to care and treatment was always sought in line with legislation and guidance. The service understood their legal responsibility to ensure they complied with the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported to make choices and decisions about all aspects of their lives, as far as they were able. People receive support from staff who respected and promoted equality and diversity.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Where people requ

Inspection carried out on 30 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection was announced and took place on 30 December 2015 and 5 January 2016. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. This was because we wanted to make sure the information we needed would be available. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. This was the first inspection of the service since it was initially registered.

Garland Support provides personal care for younger adults who have physical or learning disabilities and live in their own homes. This type of service is often referred to as supported accommodation. At the time of this inspection there were two people with visual impairment who received a range of support including personal care. Our inspection focussed on the support given to these two people. The service also provided support to people who did not require personal care. This part of the service is not covered by CQC legislation and therefore was not included in the inspection.

There is a registered manager in post. 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.

People who used the service told us they had been fully involved in drawing up and agreeing a plan of their support needs. They held a copy of their support plan and told us they were certain the information was correct. The plans were comprehensive, well laid out and easy to read. They had been regularly reviewed with the person and were up-to-date. Any potential risks to the person’s health or safety had been assessed and regularly reviewed. The support plans provided clear instructions to staff instructions on how each person wanted to be supported.

People received a reliable service. They received a rota in advance which gave them the names of the staff who would be visiting them and the day and the times of the visits. They told us they could rely on staff to arrive on time and stay for the agreed time. They also told us the service was flexible and could provide extra support, or support at a different time and at short notice if necessary.

The registered manager and staff told us one aspect of the service they were particularly proud of was their success in helping people to gain independence and to achieve their goals and aspirations. The service had links with many local resources including education services, social groups, sports and leisure facilities, and employment opportunities. They had consulted with the people who used the service to find out what they wanted to do, and if there were no suitable facilities available they organised their own, for example yoga sessions. People participated in a variety of social activities within the home and in the community. The service had good local links to promote people’s involvement in the community.

People told us the staff were always caring and treated them with respect. Comments included “The staff have the right attitude.” Staff always sought people’s agreement and consent before carrying out any task. One person told us “I feel I am really in control.”

Policies and procedures ensured people were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had received a range of training and information including safeguarding adults and they were confident they knew how to recognise and report potential abuse. People who used the service told us they felt safe. Comments included “Yes, I feel safe with the agency.”

Staff were well supported. They told us they could contact a manager at any time for advice or support. One-to-one supervision had been mainly through ad hoc meetings and group meetings, but formal one-to-one supervision sessions had been planned for the coming year. Staff meetings were held regularly. Comments included “It’s