We carried out a review of the data available to us about Max Potential UK Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Max Potential UK Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
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 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.
Why the service is rated good.
Staffing levels were flexible and staff were recruited safely. There was an up to date safeguarding policy and staff were confident to report any concerns.
Appropriate health and safety measures were in place and premises and equipment were serviced and maintained as required. Medicines systems and processes were robust.
Care plans included a range of health and support information. Information could be produced in different forms to aid understanding and inclusiveness.
Staff had undertaken a thorough induction programme and had regular on-going training.
The food provided was tailored to the individual likes and dislikes and dietary preferences and needs of each individual.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Care and support was offered with kindness, compassion and respect. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. The service made efforts to include people in their own support and care provision.
The service was responsive and flexible to changing needs. There was a range of indoor and outdoor activities on offer. People’s spiritual needs were taken into account.
There was a complaints procedure in place and concerns were dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner. We saw a number of compliments received by the service.
People who used the service, relatives and staff said the management were approachable and supportive. The registered manager had good links within the local community.
Quality checks and audits took place regularly and the service learned from these and made improvements.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The service provides respite care for up to eight people with learning and/or physical disabilities. The premises are large and have been adapted to the needs of the service, situated close to the town centre and across the road from a park.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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.
There were sufficient staff to ensure the needs of the people who used the service were attended to. We saw that the service had a robust recruitment procedure and staff undertook a thorough induction programme before commencing work. Training was on-going and included refresher courses for mandatory training and extra appropriate training.
Staff were aware of the local safeguarding policy and procedures and knew how to recognise, record and report any concerns.
Health and safety measures were in place and up to date. Robust systems were in place in relation to ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
Care plans included a range of health and personal information.
Nutritional requirements were documented and the service ensured people’s nutritional and hydration needs were adhered to.
The premises were clean, tidy, spacious and fit for purpose. People with restricted mobility were able to get around easily and safely.
The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People we spoke with told us staff were caring and kind. We observed staff interacting in a kind and friendly manner throughout the day.
People’s privacy and dignity was respected and we saw that the staff promoted independence as much as possible.
People who used the service were included in reviews and updates to their care plans.
Care plans were person-centred and included information about people’s likes and dislikes, interests, family backgrounds and personalities.
There were a wide range of activities on offer for people who used the service, as well as walks and outings.
Complaints and concerns were dealt with in a timely manner and feedback and suggestions were encouraged from interested parties, formally and informally.
Staff, relatives and health and social care professionals all described the registered manager as approachable and supportive.
The service had good links with the local community, which helped people who used the service to mix and integrate with the community.
A number of quality audits and checks were carried out by the service.
Staff meetings and supervision sessions were regularly undertaken.