You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The inspection took place on 24 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hour’s notice because we needed to be sure the right people would be available to talk to us when we visited.

YourLife (Seaford) is a domiciliary care service located within a private housing development. It provides personal care to older people living in their own flats. People’s flats were within the development, and people also had access to communal areas such as a lounge, garden and onsite restaurant. YourLife (Seaford) provides personal care to some of the people who live in the development who need additional care and support, and at the time of our inspection there were six people using the service. In addition to providing personal care the service was responsible for some facilities management for the development, and YourLife (Seaford) staff also worked in the restaurant and provided cleaning services for the communal areas and in people's homes. This part of the service is not regulated by the Care Quality Commission and was not part of this inspection.

The service did not have 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The previous registered manager had left and the new manager was currently registering with us.

The service was last inspected on the 11 and 16 May 2017, where we found areas that required improvement. The service was not always effective, there was a risk people would receive care and support from staff who had not had their skills assessed. Staff had not been properly supported with supervision and appraisal. The service was not always responsive, people knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern, but if they did their concerns were not always acted on. The service was not always well led, although there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service they were not always effective. The registered manager had not always been clear about their role. The service received an overall rating of Requires Improvement. At this inspection it was evident that improvements had been made.

People received care from staff that had received the right training and support to carry out their roles. Staff were well supported by the manager and one to one supervisions and observations of their practice took place. Training records confirmed staff received a detailed induction and regular training updates when required.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in accordance with their assessed needs and wishes. Records showed that people were involved in the assessment process and their on-going care reviews. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.

The service had an open culture that encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and this was used to drive continuous improvement. The manager and provider had quality assurance systems to review all aspects of the service to also drive up improvement.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and staff received training in their responsibilities to safeguard people. Risks relating to people's care were reduced as the provider assessed and managed risks effectively.

People's medicines were managed safely by staff. People were supported by staff who the provider checked were suitable to work with them. In addition, there were enough staff to care for people.

Staff supported people to attend appointments with healthcare professionals and worked in partnership with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred c

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was safe. People were protected against the risk of

harm and abuse as staff received training in safeguarding and were aware of the appropriate response to suspected abuse.

People were protected against the risk of avoidable harm, as the provider had developed risk management plans that identified the risk and gave staff guidance on how to mitigate those risks.

Sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed to keep people safe. Staff underwent pre-employment checks to check their suitability for the role, prior to commencing employment.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was effective. Staff received regular training to enhance their knowledge and skills to effectively meet people's needs.

Where required in people's care plans, people were supported to access sufficient amounts of food and drink that met their dietary needs and requirements.

The manager and staff knew their responsibilities in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation. People's consent to care and treatment was sought and respected.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was caring. People and their relatives were happy with the care and support they received.

People were treated with dignity, respect and had their human rights encouraged and promoted.

People received the level of support they needed and had their independence encouraged wherever possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was responsive. People received person centred care and support. Care plans were devised with people, their relatives and healthcare professionals' input.

People and relatives understood how to complain about the service, and had confidence their concerns would be addressed.

People’s choices and personal preferences were met and reviewed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was well-led. Audits were carried out across a wide range of areas and this showed that the manager and provider monitored the quality and performance regularly.

People and their relatives were asked for their views. They and staff could approach the registered manager with their queries and they were listened to so that improvements could be made.

The manager was visible and approachable and we received positive feedback about the management of the service from people, relatives and staff.