Archived: Options West Sussex

Options West Sussex is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people living in their own homes who have a range of needs, including people with a learning disability and Autism. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection 22 people were receiving personal care.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, records had not always been made for decisions completed in people’s best interest. We recommended that the management team continue to review guidance on the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People told us they were happy with the service they received and staff treated them with kindness and respect. Relatives gave us positive feedback about people’s safety and told us that staff did their job well. One relative said, “I trust them [staff], and know they will look after [Person’s name] and keep them safe.”

Staff had completed training in the safe administration of medicines and people received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Appropriate arrangements were in place for obtaining, recording and disposing of prescribed medicines.

Systems were in place to monitor incidents, accidents and near misses. There were clear processes in place to monitor risks to people, which helped to ensure they received effective care to maintain their safety and wellbeing.

Staff received an induction into their role and had received appropriate training that equipped them to support people. They had regular refreshers of training to help ensure they continued to be sufficiently skilled and knowledgeable. Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.

People's needs were assessed to ensure these could be met by the service. The management team and staff worked with other external professionals to ensure people received effective care.

People had detailed and accurate care plans in place, which were person centred. Staff supported people, showed an understanding of equality and diversity and people were treated with dignity, and their privacy was respected. People and their relatives where relevant, were involved in the planning and review of their care. People were supported to maintain their independence and encouraged to participate in activities of daily living.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

A complaints procedure was in place, which relatives and people confirmed they were aware of. People's concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and resolved quickly.

Staff, people and relatives told us they had a good relationship with the management team and could seek support and assistance easily when needed. There were effective systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 26 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

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

Hillcrest Supported Living, West Sussex is a ‘supported living’ service providing support to adults with learning disabilities, autism and other complex needs. This service provides care and support to people so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate agreements; this inspection looked at their personal care and support arrangements. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting 25 people with personal care. They lived by themselves or with family or in one of five small shared houses with people of similar needs, abilities and preferences. Hillcrest Supported Living, West Sussex has a registered office in Felpham, Bognor Regis. The office kept records relating to the people they were supporting, staff records and other records relating to the management of the service.

The service had a registered manager in post who was registered in August 2016. 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.

During this inspection we observed the registered manager knew people they supported well and was hands on in his approach and was committed to ensuring people using the service received a good standard of care. However, they failed to notify the Commission about one allegation of potential abuse. We have made a recommendation to the provider regarding this. Audits to monitor the quality of the care provided to people were not always effective. This included how the office monitored the completion of Medication Administration Records and risk assessments. We have discussed this in the Well-Led section of this report. The registered manager was able to take action during the inspection to improve these areas and minimise the risks to people using the service.

Staff understood local safeguarding procedures. They were able to speak about what action they would take if they had a concern or felt a person was at risk of abuse. Relatives spoke positively about the support their family members received from the service and records reflected there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. The service followed safe recruitment practices and overall medicines were managed safely.

Staff felt confident with the support and guidance they had been given during their induction and subsequent training. Staff also told us they were satisfied with the level of support that they were given from the management team. Supervisions and appraisals were consistently carried out for all staff supporting people.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and to be involved with determining the care they received. Staff understood the requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and about people's capacity to make decisions. Some people received support with food and drink and had access to health and social care professionals when needed.

Staff spoke kindly and respectfully to people, involving them with the care provided. Staff had developed meaningful relationships with people they supported. Staff knew people well and had a caring approach. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Care planning was personalised and focused upon the person’s whole life, including their goals and aspirations, skills, abilities and how they preferred to manage their health. Care plans reflected information relevant to each individual and their abilities including people's communication and health needs. They provided clear guidance to staff on how to meet people's individual needs. The service protected people from social isolation. Staff were proactive, and made sure that people were able to keep relationships that matter to them such as family, community and other social links.

The service had an accessible complaints policy and people and their relatives were listened to. People's views about the quality of the service were obtained informally through discussions with the registered manager and formally through satisfaction surveys. Relatives were asked for their feedback and this was positive.

During the inspection, we found the registered manager and deputy manager promoted an open culture. They maintained positive links with external agencies and were keen to develop and improve the service further to benefit the lives of those they were supporting.