You are here

Archived: The Providence Projects - Percy

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6, 7 August 2013
Date of Publication: 7 September 2013
Inspection Report published 07 September 2013 PDF | 87.42 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 6 August 2013 and 7 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system in place to regularly check and monitor the quality of the service people received.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

People were asked to evaluate the service they received when they completed their treatment programmes. People were also randomly selected for their views about the service every month.

We looked at questionnaires obtained using both methods and there were no obvious trends in those we viewed that identified any need for change or improvement.

People told us there were plenty of opportunities available to them to raise issues of concern or make complaints if they were dissatisfied with anything. They told us they could submit a written request if they did not want to discuss anything in public. They told us that there were regular house meetings and there were also regular larger community meetings. In addition they said they could raise concerns with their designated counsellors.

We looked at records of out of hours incidents. Over a period four months prior to our inspection there had been 11 incidents. Seven were about people who discharged themselves from the their treatment programmes, two were cases of illness and two about the behaviour of people that had resulted in the need for staff to attend accommodation. This showed that there was a system in place that could identify if necessary the need to implement changes.

There was a system of regular checks of working practice and procedures in order to see if they were followed properly. These checks included monthly audits of a sample of care plans. This was done to check that people received their one-to-one therapy or counselling sessions and had signed all the consent from that were required. We noted that one audit had identified the need for the record of a one-to-one meeting to be signed.

Other checks included daily health and safety checks of the two premises used as day centres by the provider as well as the accommodation used by people attending treatment programmes.

From our last inspection of the Providence Projects we knew that accommodation was properly maintained. We saw then that services and equipment such as electrical wiring, fire safety equipment, gas appliances, central heating and portable electrical appliances were checked and serviced regularly. This meant the provider had systems in place to identify and manage risks to people’s health, safety and welfare.