Background to this inspection
Updated
14 March 2019
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place between 7,8 and 13 February 2019 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider a short amount of notice (48 hours) that we would be visiting the office to ensure a manager was present and to seek consent in advance from people who used the service to visit their homes.
The inspection team consisted of three adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service, in this case experience of services for people with learning disabilities.
On 7 February we visited the provider's branch office to review documentation and records relating to the management of the service and visited three supported living property’s where we spoke with six people who used the service and three support workers and looked at three people’s support plans. medication records and other records which related to the management of the service such as training records and policies and procedures. We made phone calls to people, their relatives and staff on 7 and 8 February 2019 to ask them about the quality of the service. One adult social care inspector visited the office for a second day on 13 February to look at documentation and give feedback to the registered manager.
In total we spoke with nine people who used the service, 11 relatives, eight support workers, two managers, the area manager and the registered manager. We observed some aspects of care and support in the homes we visited.
As part of our inspection planning we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included information from the provider, notifications and contacting relevant local authorities. We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This was completed and returned to us.
Updated
14 March 2019
The inspection took place between 7, 8 and 13 February 2019 and was announced. This meant the staff and provider knew we would be visiting.
At the last inspection in May 2016 we found the provider was rated overall as good with one domain rated outstanding. At this inspection we found the service remains good with the one domain rated outstanding.
Creative Support (Halifax) provides support for people with a range of disabilities and complex needs. The service aims to enable people to live independent and dignified lives, by the provision of care in a supported living environment. At the time of inspection there were 29 people receiving a personal care service.
A registered manager was in place. 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.
We found strong evidence the service actively sought the views of people using the service through innovative methods, fully involving them in the interviewing process for new staff, and knowledge sharing. We found an extremely dedicated and knowledgeable management team committed to ensuring people could live as fulfilling lives as possible. This promoted people's health and wellbeing and enhanced their quality of life.
People said the standard of care was very good and they were well cared for. People spoke very highly about staff, the support they received and opportunities available to them. People had developed exceptionally strong relationships with staff which they spoke about to us with the upmost respect for them. Staff including the management team knew people very well and consistently helped them achieve their dreams and aspirations.
The service had good links with the local community. This empowered people to be involved in events and activities which took place in the local area. Due to the resources available and dedication of the staff team, people had access to an exceptional range of activities in the community. These helped people achieve their dreams and build self-confidence. The service was exceptional at helping people develop their independence through a series of well thought out goals. People were fully involved in the planning and setting of these goals. People were very keen to tell us what these were and how this made them more independent. People's achievements were celebrated by the service to help build further confidence. People were proud to tell us of their achievements.
Staff had opportunities to update their skills and professional development. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. 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.
Staff were confident in supporting people with medicines and knew people very well.
There was an open and transparent culture in which staff felt valued and able to approach the registered manager. Staff told us they felt valued and really enjoyed their role. The management team continued to improve and work as much as possible with people’s relatives if they had any concerns or complaints. We saw accident and incident were reviewed; however, these were not at the time of inspection fully embedded to look at lessons learnt or analysis. We spoke to the registered manager who had reviewed these and put into place analysis of these accident and incidents by the second day of inspection.
We looked at the environmental risk assessments for the outside of the building due to a mossy area on the footpath of Iona House. We saw this had not been accounted for on the risk assessments or audits, which meant people who accessed this outside footpath were at an increased risk of slipping or falling. The registered manager by the second day of inspection had the paths cleaned and reviewed the risk assessments and audit in relation to this.