You are here

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

Reports


Inspection carried out on 30 July 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Voyage (DCA) Rotherham is a domiciliary care agency proving care and support to people in supported living schemes and in their own homes in the community. The service predominantly provides support to younger adults with learning disabilities.

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.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

On the day of our inspection 48 people were receiving a regulated activity.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were safe. All people we spoke with told us staff made them feel safe. Staff we spoke with understood safeguarding procedures and how to whistle blow if required to ensure any safeguarding concerns were reported. The registered manager monitored accidents and incidents to try to ensure lessons learnt. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

Risks were managed to enable people to be as independent as possible. Accidents and incidents were monitored, and lessons were learnt. Medication systems were in place and followed by staff to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

We found adequate staff were provided to meet people’s needs. However, in one scheme they were short staffed and permanent staff were covering extra shifts. The provider was actively recruiting to ensure adequate staff were employed. The recruitment process was robust to ensure only staff suitable to work with vulnerable adults were employed.

Staff were very knowledgeable about people needs, care was person-centred and individualised. Staff said training was good and from talking with staff and our observations it was effective. Staff were supervised and supported.

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.

People were supported to be able to receive a balanced diet. People told us they chose their food, but staff supported them. People had access to health care professionals.

When staff engaged with people they were kind, caring and compassionate. People told us the staff were lovely and genuinely cared. People were involved in their care planning to ensure their decisions and choices were reflected.

Staff, people who used the service and health care professionals we spoke with told us the communication was predominantly good. However, we were told in one area the communication could improve, the registered manager had already identified this and was addressing it.

People told us they were supported by the same group of staff, which ensured consistency. However, in one scheme, due to staff shortages this was not always possible. This was being addressed by the registered manager.

The service had a registered manager who conducted a range of audits in areas such as, medicine management, health and safety, care plans and daily records documentation. We found the monitoring was effective. For example, the registered manager had identified the need to improve communication in a service and was addressing this at the time of our inspection.

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

Rating at last inspec

Inspection carried out on 5 January 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 5 and 18 January 2017 it was unannounced on the first day. The service was re-registered with the Commission in June 2016 as the provider changed the company name, so this was the first inspection of the service under the new registration.

Voyage (DCA) Rotherham provides personal care to people living in supported living schemes and also provides care and support to people living with family in their own homes. Its office is based near the centre of Rotherham. The agency supports people with a learning disability.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service. People we spoke with told us they were very happy with the care and support they received.

We saw there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made.

We found the service employed enough staff to meet the needs of the people being supported. Staff had completed training to be able to meet people’s needs, and received regular supervision, which meant they were well supported. Staff also had an annual appraisal of their work.

We found people received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Their needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and where possible they, and their relatives, had been involved in formulating their care plans. Care records sampled identified people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care and the environment they lived in.

Where people needed assistance taking their medication this was administered in a timely way by staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The management team had a good understanding and knowledge of this topic. However, staff told us they required more training to fully understand the legislation and how it impacted on people they supported.

People had access to a varied programme of activities which provided stimulation in the supported living scheme, as well as regular trips out into the community.

People were provided with information about how to raise a concern and how it would be addressed. Records showed that systems for recording and managing complaints, safeguarding concerns and incidents and accidents were managed well and that management took steps to learn from such events and put measures in place which meant lessons were learnt and they were less likely to happen again.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Action plans were implemented for any improvements required and these were followed up by staff.