We carried out a review of the data available to us about YourLife (Glen Parva) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about YourLife (Glen Parva), you can give feedback on this service.
Yourlife Glen Parva is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to older people in their own homes within an assisted living development. 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. At the time of the inspection nine people were receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff had been trained in medicine management and had their competencies checked. Staff had completed training in line with the company policies and procedures, including safeguarding training for adults and staff knew how to report and record and concerns.
Audits and spot checks were completed, and actions identified when required. People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback on the service via surveys and meetings.
People told us they felt safe with staff and that staff knew them well and completed care in line with their wishes and needs. Staff had been recruited safely and had all the relevant checks in place before they started with the service. New staff completed an induction and training schedule before completing lone working.
People and relatives told us that staff were kind and caring towards the people they supported. People and relatives had a good relationship with staff.
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.
Care plans and risk assessments were completed with details of people’s preferences, choices, communication, likes and dislikes. This supported staff to know how to support people well.
Staff supported people to access healthcare services when appropriate and made referrals as required to the relevant professionals such as, occupational therapy, GP’s and district nurses.
Staff respected people’s right to privacy and promoted people to be as independent as possible. People’s communication needs were known by staff and the registered manager could provide documentation in different formats to meet people’s needs.
The registered manager understood their role and responsibility. People and staff felt listened to by the registered manager and were confident to raise and concerns or suggestions to them.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 28 February 2017).
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Yourlife Glen Parva provides personal care to older people in their own homes within an assisted living development. At the time of the inspection there were three people using the service.
At the time of our inspection there was a new manager in post. they were in the process of applying to become the registered manager with CQC.. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.
People told us they felt safe. Staff had received training and understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments had been carried out and staff knew how to minimise risk. People knew how to raise a concern and could contact staff at anytime. There were a suitable number of staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had been carried out so that as far as possible only staff with the right character and experience were employed.
People were supported to take their prescribed medicines in a safe way. Staff had received training and had access to policies and procedures about the management of people's medicine's. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts. There was a communal dining room where people could choose to have their lunch. Staff supported people to access medical appointments and consulted healthcare professionals when required.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were able to make their own decisions. Staff had some understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 20015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before providing support. People were treated with respect and had their privacy and dignity maintained.
Staff had received training and were supported to meet people's needs. They knew about people's likes and dislikes and the way they preferred to receive care and support.
People had their needs assessed and were involved in developing their care plan. There was a range of social and recreational activities on offer and people could use the communal spaces to socialise and take part in activities.
The provider had a complaints procedure. People said they would feel confident making a complaint if they needed to.
People and staff felt the service was well managed. There was a new manager in post at the time of our inspection. People who used the service and staff had confidence in them and felt supported.
People and their relatives had opportunities to give feedback about the quality of the service that they had received. The provider had processes in place so that checks were carried out on the quality of the service that was delivered.