Archived: Quality Lifestyle Limited

People’s experience of using this service:

People were not able to fully verbalise their views about their experience of the service they received. However, we were able to speak to their relatives.

People received support from a staff team that were both caring, compassionate and treated them with dignity and respect. Any issues of concerns were responded to and used as an opportunity to improve the service.

People received person centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were aware of people's life history, and their communication needs. They used this information to develop positive, meaningful relationships with people.

A relative said the care their loved one received was very good and they were happy with the service they received.

The provider ensured as much as possible that people had a consistent staff team supporting and visiting them.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

Staff understood and felt confident in their role.

The registered manager liaised with other health care professionals to ensure people's safety and meet their health needs.

Where people lacked capacity, staff worked with family members and the local authority to make sure they minimised any restrictions on people's freedom for their safety and wellbeing.

Staff spoke positively about working for the company and the management team. They felt supported and could talk to the management team at any time. They felt any concerns would be acted on promptly. They felt happy in their work.

Audits were carried out to check the quality and safety of the service.

The registered manager and service manager worked well together to support the staff team in their roles and ensure people received a good service.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 28 October 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection, the service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

There was 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.

We carried out this inspection on 4 and 5 October 2016 and this was the first inspection for the service since starting to operate in May 2015.

Not everyone who used the service was able to tell us their views about the care and support they received. However, we observed people were relaxed and comfortable with the staff supporting them. One person told us, “I am very happy living in my house.” Relatives told us they were happy with the care and support their family member received and believed they were safe. One relative said, “I am happy with the service.”

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected.

People received care from staff who knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People were supported by dedicated teams who were employed to work specifically with each person using the service. People told us they were always supported by someone they knew. New staff were introduced to people to find out how an individual and the member of staff interacted. One person said, “I have had some staff that I haven’t liked and they don’t come to me anymore.”

Care plans were developed with the person and records were regularly reviewed. Details of how people wished to be supported were personalised to the individual and provided clear information to enable staff to provide appropriate and effective support. Any risks in relation to people’s care and support were identified and appropriately managed.

People had access to annual health screening to maintain their health. Specialist services such as occupational therapists, epilepsy nurses and dieticians were used when required. Relatives told us they were confident that the service could meet people’s health needs. Staff supported people to maintain a healthy lifestyle where this was part of their support plan. People were supported by staff with their menu planning, food shopping and the preparation and cooking of their meals. People were supported to access the local community and told us they took part in activities that they enjoyed and wanted to do.

The management and staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.

There was a positive culture in the service, the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. Management were visible and known to staff and people using the service. Staff told us, “People have very person centred care and the management care about the person” and “Management are supportive and someone is always available on call if you need them.”

Relatives and healthcare professionals were positive about how the service was managed, comments included, “They deliver a good service”, “Overall it works wells” and “If Quality Lifestyle hadn’t stepped in to take over the package I don’t know what I would have happened. I can’t thank them enough.”

People and their relatives said they knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to but felt that issues would be resolved informally as the management and staff were very approachable. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.