You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 24 July 2018

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 11 May 2017

During a routine inspection

Our inspection took place on 11 & 16 May 2017 and was announced. . We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice because we needed to be sure the right people would be available to talk to us when we visited. This was the services first inspection since it registered with us.

YourLife (Seaford) is a domiciliary care service located within a private housing development, close to local amenities. People own their own flats within the development, and also have access to communal areas such as a lounge, garden and 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 five 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 apartments. This part of the service is not regulated by the Care Quality Commission and was not part of this inspection.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Incidents and accidents were not always reported or thoroughly investigated and action was not taken to reduce the risk of them being repeated. The registered manager and staff did not always understand the importance of learning from incidents so they could make improvements to the service.

Staff had regular training, but not supervision or appraisal to support them. Appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed before staff began working for the provider. Staff gave us positive feedback about the training they did receive and said it helped them in their role.

Although the provider carried out regular audits to ensure people experienced safe and good quality care, these did not always highlight areas of practice that required improvement, such as lack of staff supervision and appraisal. People knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns with the registered manager, but when concerns were raised they were not always fully considered. Feedback about the personal care aspect of the service was not always asked for or acted on.

People told us they were safe. Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and what to do if they thought someone was at risk. Where risks to an individual had been identified, these were effectively managed. People were supported to take their medicines safely when needed.

People gave us positive feedback about the care they received and were able to express their views and preferences about their care and these were acted on. People were treated with respect and their privacy was protected. People’s care needs were regularly assessed and people and those important to them were involved in making decisions about their care. People’s support needs were assessed and care plans were developed to details how these needs should be met. Care plans were detailed which helped staff provide the individual care people needed.

People were asked for their consent appropriately and staff and the registered manager had a basic understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This legislation provides a legal framework for acting and making decisions on behalf of adults who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People who needed it were supported to eat and drink enough and staff knew what to do if they thought someone was at risk of malnutrition or dehydration. People’s day to day health care needs were met.