You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 December 2018

We carried out this announced inspection on 18, 23 and 24 October 2018. The service was previously inspected in April 2016 when it was operated by a different provider and was found to be good in all areas. At this inspection we again rated the service as Good.

Options Kernow provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It is a supported living service which aims to support people to live 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. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to 12 people with a learning disability living in Cornwall. Each person was supported by a team of staff for up to 24 hours per day.

People felt safe and well cared for by staff who’s company they enjoyed. People told us, “I am happy living here”, “[The staff] are nice to me” and “The staff are very good. I can have a laugh with them.” People’s relatives were also complimentary of the support the service provided and commented, “[My relative] is safe, [they] are very well looked after”, “The staff are wonderful, conscientious and caring” and “[My relative] likes them.”

All staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their role in ensuring people were protected from harm, all forms of abuse and discrimination. Staff were confident any concerns they reported to their managers would be addressed.

Each person was supported by a dedicated team of staff who they knew well. We found that the service employed sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and records showed planned levels of support had been achieved. There were appropriate systems in place to ensure people needs were met during unexpected periods of staff absence and staff told us “If someone phones in sick someone else comes in within a couple of hours.” The service only agreed to provided additional packages of care where suitable staff were available.

Staff were well trained and knew how to meet people’s support needs. All new staff completed comprehensive induction training which included the care certificate. All training was updated and staff told us, “The training is very good” and “They give you plenty of training.”

Care plans provided staff with sufficient guidance to enable them to meet people’s support needs. These documents were designed to help staff to provide consistent support. Care plans included details of the level of support people normally required with specific tasks and activities. Information about people’s life history hobbies and interests was included along with background information on the person needs to enable staff to provide personalised support. People and their relative’s had been involved in the development and review of care plans. We were told, “I made my own guidelines up, They do what I want them to do” and “I am involved in the care plan reviews.” Staff said people care plans were accurate and up to date and commented, “The care plans are very good” and “The care plans are very informative they are the first point of call. They are kept up to date.”

Risk assessments had been completed and clearly identified the actions staff must take to ensure people’s safety. This included any environmental risks in people’s homes and any risks in relation to the care and support needs of the person. Where people were at risk of becoming anxious or confused staff were provided with details of events and incidents likely to cause anxiety and guidance on how to support people to manage these issues. All staff had completed training in positive behavioural management techniques and staff told us, “We are trained in positive behaviour management techniques but we very rarely use it. Only when necessary to keep people safe. I think we have only had to use it twice in the last two years.” Relative were confident these techn

Inspection areas



Updated 1 December 2018

The service was safe. There were sufficient staff available to meet people�s assessed care needs.

Recruitment procedures were safe and staff understood both the providers and local authority�s procedures for the reporting of suspected abuse.

The risks management procedures were robust and designed to protect people from harm while enabling them to engage with the local community and their hobbies and interests.

Medicines were managed safely and there were appropriate procedures in place to support people to manage their finances



Updated 1 December 2018

The service was effective. Staff training was regularly updated and there were appropriate procedures in place for the induction of new members of staff.

The service worked collaboratively with health professionals and people were supported to access and balance and healthy diet.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and where people�s care plans were potentially restrictive this had been raised with care commissioners for authorisation by the Court of protection.



Updated 1 December 2018

The service was caring. Staff were caring and people enjoyed the company of their support staff.

People were able to choose how to spend their time and staff respected people�s decisions.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.



Updated 1 December 2018

The service was responsive. People�s care plans were detailed, informative and provided staff with sufficient guidance to enable them to provide individualised support.

Information about people�s likes and interest had been recorded and people were supported to access the local community when they wished.

Staff had been provided with detailed guidance on people�s communication needs and care records were available in accessible formats.

There were systems in place to ensure all complaints were investigated and resolved.



Updated 1 December 2018

The service was well led. The registered manager had provided staff with appropriate leadership and support and the staff team was well motivated.

Quality assurance systems were appropriate and were used to drive improvements in the service�s performance.