• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Revidge Support Living Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Ground Floor Dixon House, 17a Gorse Road, Blackburn, Lancashire, BB2 6LY (01254) 682894

Provided and run by:
Revidge Support Living Ltd

All Inspections

03rd February 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 03 February 2015 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The service is registered to provide personal care for people who have a learning disability. On the day of the inspection the service provided support for two people who had a learning disability and lived with their families.

We last inspected this service in 10 September 2013 when the service met all the standards we inspected. This unannounced inspection took place on 03 February 2015.

The service had a registered manager. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were aware of and had been trained in safeguarding procedures to help protect the health and welfare of people who used the service. One person we spoke with said she felt safe. Staff were recruited using current guidelines to help minimise the risk of abuse to people who used the service.

Although the service were not responsible for looking at people’s mental capacity and the two people we spoke with had capacity, staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and should be aware of when a person needed to have a deprivation of liberty safeguard hearing to protect their rights.

People who used the service were taken on suitable outings and from the evidence we looked at were trying new activities to be more comfortable in the community. People were also supported to improve their life and communication skills.

There was a suitable office which contained sufficient equipment to operate well. There was a room for training if required.

The two staff were not responsible for administering medicines but had been trained to do so should medicines be required.

Plans of care were personal to each person and updated regularly. People who used the service or a family member had signed the forms which were kept up to date by staff who wrote what they did for each person daily. The registered manager audited the plans of care to check on the quality and content of them.

Risks to people who used the service and members of staff were identified and managed safely.

People who used the service were supported by the same staff member on one to one support. This meant staff knew them well and could communicate with each person in their chosen way. Staff said they had looked after them for so long they now knew what people wanted.

People who used the service had access to the complaints procedure but did not have any concerns. There had not been any complaints made to the Care Quality Commission since the last inspection

10 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We asked the staff how they enabled people who used the service to receive safe and effective care. They told us, 'I fill the care file in every day, it is important as all the information about the client (person who used the service) and their needs is in it'.

The staff member we spoke with told us how they ensured they obtained consent prior to any activity. They told us, 'I always ask permission, I use pictures and gestures'.

We saw there were policies and procedures for safeguarding and whistleblowing in place for staff to follow should they need to refer to them. The staff member we spoke with confirmed they had read the policy.

We spoke with one member of staff who gave positive feedback. They told us, 'The manager is very good, anything you need you just ask, she is always there'.

The manager was able to explain that appropriate systems were in place to deal with complaints.

3 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People who used the service could not reliably give their verbal opinions on the service they received. Therefore we examined the services recruitment and selection policy and procedure, the services quality monitoring records and the records of a person using the service to help us evidence that they benefited from safe quality care, treatment and support. We looked at records that confirmed that the service had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place. This process ensured that any future employees would be suitable for their role.

30 April 2012

During a routine inspection

People were satisfied with the service provided. Relatives of a person using the service were agreeable to the treatment and support their relative was receiving. They felt their relative had overall choice and they were in control of their life as far as possible.

People's care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. Comments made by relatives on the services service user satisfaction survey, confirmed they felt that members of staff respected their relatives dignity at all times. They also felt their health care needs were being met.

We found staff had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults and had access to appropriate policies and procedures. Staff had an understanding of the safeguarding processes and knew how to raise an alert. They knew who to complain to if they were not happy with any aspect of their care and support.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs. People made complimentary comments about the staff team and their abilities in demonstrating a respectful and sensitive approach to meeting people's needs.

We saw evidence to demonstrate that people were being consulted about their opinion of the service. They felt their concerns and complaints were taken seriously. Their comments were used to shape the care provided for them.