You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 August 2018

The inspection took place on the 21 and 22 June 2018 and was announced, as visits to people in their own homes needed to be arranged with them. The service is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 16 people with learning disabilities and/or mental health needs across Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. Not everyone using Voyage (DCA) South 2 receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This service provides care and support to people living in four ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. People lived in a range of houses and flats, some located in ordinary residential streets. The two homes we visited during this inspection were three and four bedroomed homes, with shared communal areas and a room where sleep-in staff slept at night.

At the inspection in April 2017 we rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. This was because we found recruitment practices did not meet required standards and we had not been notified of all safeguarding incidents occurring at the service as required by law. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when, to improve the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to at least good. The provider told us their action plan would be completed by 26 August 2017.

At this inspection on 21 and 22 June 2018 we rated the service ‘Good’ overall.

Why the service is rated Good:

At our June 2018 inspection, we found improvements had been made to recruitment practices but checks where staff had previously worked in care needed to be more robust. Despite this, there was no impact on people’s safety as the systems in place to induct and monitor staff performance protected people from poor practice. Staff knew how to safeguard people from harm. We recommended that the service review recruitment processes for staff who had worked in care before. We found improvements to notifications to CQC had been met and sustained.

People’s needs had been assessed and their support requirements and preferences were recorded in detail to provide staff with the guidance they needed to support people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The service’s policies and systems supported this practice. Effective systems were in place to manage people’s medicines. When medicines errors occurred, staff underwent retraining and further competency checks. People were supported to access health care services and to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. Outcomes for people were good and they were supported to live as fulfilling lives as possible. People described their home as, “a happy home”.

Enough staff were available to ensure people’s well-being and for people to participate in activities safely. Staff understood people’s needs and completed appropriate training to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. Staff felt supported and well trained and had access to the guidance they needed to support people effectively.

The registered manager had been in post since March 2018. A registered manager is a person

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was not always safe.

People were safeguarded from the risk of being supported by unsuitable staff, however recruitment checks for staff who had previously worked in care needed to be more robust.

Safeguarding incidents were reported in a timely way and appropriate agencies were involved.

People were protected against health related and environmental risks and there were enough staff recruited to meet their support needs.

People were supported to take their medicines safely and plans were in place to keep them safe in the event of an emergency.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs and were supported to carry out their roles.

People's consent was routinely sought. Capacity assessments were completed when people may be unable to consent to the care provided or make specific decisions.

People received a balanced diet and were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They were supported to access health care.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff developed positive friendly relationships with people who used the service. People were treated with respect, kindness and compassion.

People were listened to and were involved in decisions about their care.

People's dignity and privacy was maintained and their independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care and were consulted about the support they received. Staff knew people well and helped them follow their interests and realise their aspirations.

People were enabled to maintain relationships and communicate with those who mattered to them.

People could raise complaints and these were listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was well led.

There was a positive culture within the service and the provider’s vision and ethos were demonstrated by staff.

Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the management team.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.