Fenland Learning Disability Partnership

Updated 9 January 2023

Cambridgeshire Learning Disability Partnership has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since November 2016, provides regulated activities for treatment of disease, disorder or injury and had never been inspected. The Cambridgeshire Learning Disability Partnership brings together specialist health and social care services for people with a learning disability.

The LDP is responsible for commissioning and providing these services on behalf of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Integrated Care Board (Previously the CCG), and Cambridgeshire County Council. Social Care staff are employed by the County Council, and health staff are employed by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Foundation Trust. There is a Formal Management Agreement between both organisations for the Integrated service and all staff are part of the LDP.

The LDP directly provides access to specialist nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, allied health professionals, Social Workers and Social Care staff through its integrated community teams, which cover the county from four locations:

• Huntingdon
• East Cambridgeshire
• Fenland
• South Cambridgeshire and City

This report relates to our inspection of Fenland Learning Disability Partnership. Reports for the other three learning disability partnerships services are available on the providers website. The LDP in-house provider services directly provide daytime support, respite care and some supported living accommodation in various locations across Cambridgeshire. The in-house services referred to are registered with the CQC individually and separately from the community teams referred to in this inspection The majority of daytime support, respite care, domiciliary care and supported living accommodation were commissioned by the LDP from a wide range of independent and voluntary sector care providers, acting in partnership with the LDP to deliver high-quality care options for people with a learning disability. Their aim is to enable people to live as independently as possible in their local communities, accessing mainstream services wherever possible.

What people who use the service say

We spoke with three people using the service and six carers over the phone and reviewed comments and feedback from surveys, speak out forums and local partnership board. All the people we spoke with said staff were respectful and polite.

We saw evidence in care records that staff used a variety of communication tools to engage with people and their supporters and carers.

One carer told us of the strategies that were put in place by the nurses from the Learning Disability Partnership to improve their relative’s physical activity levels.

One carer told us about the positive response to the concerns they raised with the Learning Disability Partnership about their relative’s medicines and the side effects this caused them. Their relative’s medicine was subsequently discontinued which resulted in an improvement to their well-being.

One person told us they had regular contact with staff from the service and they were supportive.

All three people using the service were able to tell us that they had a support plan in place.

One person with dysphagia needs, told us they regularly saw their speech and language therapist who taught them how to prepare and eat their food safely.

One person told us they regularly saw their community nurse and art therapist where they completed projects that they enjoyed.

One carer told us there had been a best interest meeting which led to the person accessing a specialist dentist.

Updated 9 January 2023

• The service did not meet the target time of 18 weeks for seeing people from referral to assessment and assessment to treatment. The referral to assessment waiting time was 46 weeks. The waiting time for referral to treatment was 50 weeks.
• The service did not ensure that all appropriate staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals in accordance with their own policy.
• Managers did not receive sufficient up to date information to have oversight of specific performance areas.

However:

• People were protected from abuse and poor care. The service had sufficient, appropriately skilled staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.
• People received kind and compassionate care from staff who protected and respected their privacy and dignity and understood each person’s individual needs. People had their communication needs met and information was shared in a way that could be understood.
• People were involved in managing their own risks whenever possible. Staff developed positive behaviour support plans with people who used the service so that they were aware of any risks they posed to themselves, others or their environment.
• Staff were aware of what strategies to use to minimise and manage risks. Staff anticipated and managed risk. They had a high degree of understanding of peoples’ needs.
• People’s care, treatment and support plans, reflected their sensory, cognitive and functioning needs. People made choices and took part in activities which were part of their planned care and support. Staff supported them to achieve their goals.
• People who used services and those close to them were active partners in their care. We reviewed four care records and saw staff were fully committed to working in partnership with people and making this a reality for each person.
• Staff empowered people who use the service to have a voice and to realise their potential. They showed determination and creativity to overcome obstacles to delivering care.
• Patients could give feedback on the service and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. People were empowered to feedback on their care and support. We saw examples where staff had encouraged feedback using an easy read “we welcome your feedback” form. We saw evidence that staff had acted on this feedback.
• Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Staff supported people through recognised models of care and treatment for people with a learning disability or autistic people. Leadership was good, and governance processes helped the service to keep people safe, protect their human rights and provide good care, support and treatment.
• Staff worked with social care providers to ensure care was line with best practice and national guidance. For example, quality standard 101, behaviour that challenges National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence (NICE).

Updated 9 January 2023

• The service did not meet the target time of 18 weeks for seeing people from referral to assessment and assessment to treatment. The referral to assessment waiting time was 46 weeks. The waiting time for referral to treatment was 50 weeks.
• The service did not ensure that all appropriate staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals in accordance with their own policy.
• Managers did not receive sufficient up to date information to have oversight of specific performance areas.

However:

• People were protected from abuse and poor care. The service had sufficient, appropriately skilled staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.
• People received kind and compassionate care from staff who protected and respected their privacy and dignity and understood each person’s individual needs. People had their communication needs met and information was shared in a way that could be understood.
• People were involved in managing their own risks whenever possible. Staff developed positive behaviour support plans with people who used the service so that they were aware of any risks they posed to themselves, others or their environment.
• Staff were aware of what strategies to use to minimise and manage risks. Staff anticipated and managed risk. They had a high degree of understanding of peoples’ needs.
• People’s care, treatment and support plans, reflected their sensory, cognitive and functioning needs. People made choices and took part in activities which were part of their planned care and support. Staff supported them to achieve their goals.
• People who used services and those close to them were active partners in their care. We reviewed four care records and saw staff were fully committed to working in partnership with people and making this a reality for each person.
• Staff empowered people who use the service to have a voice and to realise their potential. They showed determination and creativity to overcome obstacles to delivering care.
• Patients could give feedback on the service and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. People were empowered to feedback on their care and support. We saw examples where staff had encouraged feedback using an easy read “we welcome your feedback” form. We saw evidence that staff had acted on this feedback.
• Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Staff supported people through recognised models of care and treatment for people with a learning disability or autistic people. Leadership was good, and governance processes helped the service to keep people safe, protect their human rights and provide good care, support and treatment.
• Staff worked with social care providers to ensure care was line with best practice and national guidance. For example, quality standard 101, behaviour that challenges National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence (NICE).