You are here

Natural Networks - Individualised Support Service Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 February 2018

This announced comprehensive inspection took place on 8 January 2018.

At the previous inspection we found breaches of regulation in relation to; the need for consent and good governance. As part of this inspection we checked to see if the necessary improvements had been made and sustained.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; Effective, Responsive and Well-led to at least good. We found that improvements had been made in accordance with the action plan in each of the key questions. The service was now meeting regulatory requirements.

This service provides care and support to people living in two ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

At the last inspection in November 2016 we identified a breach of regulation 11 (Need for consent) because there were no suitable arrangements in place for obtaining consent and acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). As part of this inspection we checked records to ensure that improvements had been made and sustained in accordance with the provider’s action plan.

The records that we saw indicated that the service operated in accordance with the principles of the MCA. It was clear from care records and discussions with people that consent was sought and recorded in relation to care and treatment. People’s capacity to consent to care was assessed and recorded.

The provider was no longer in breach of regulation 11 regarding the need for consent.

At the last inspection in November 2016 we identified a breach or regulation 17 (Good governance) because the provider had failed to maintain an accurate and contemporaneous record in respect of each person receiving a service. As part of this inspection we checked records to ensure that improvements had been made and sustained in accordance with the provider’s action plan.

The care records that were held within the person’s own home contained the same information as those in the registered office and were supplemented with daily notes. The daily notes were respectfully worded and provided staff with important information about; health, activities, sleep-patterns etc.

It was clear from the records that we saw that improvements had been made and sustained in accordance with the provider’s action plan.

The provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17 regarding good governance.

People spoke positively about the safety of the service provided. We saw that the service had well-developed and extensive systems for protecting people from the risk of abuse or neglect. The staff that we spoke with were clear about their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and said that they would not hesitate to report any concerns to their managers or externally (whistleblowing) if necessary.

The care records that we saw clearly demonstrated that risk was assessed and reviewed to keep people safe. It was equally clear that positive risk taking was encouraged to help people to develop their skills and independence.

The records that we saw provided evidence that staff were safely recruited and deployed in sufficient numbers to keep people safe. Each of the records contained a recent Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, photographic identification and two references.

The service adhered to best-practice gui

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was safe.

Systems and processes were effective in monitoring safety and protecting people from harm.

Risk was appropriately assessed and reviewed without unnecessarily restricting people’s independence.

Staff were safely recruited and deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were trained in a range of relevant subjects and provided with regular supervision.

The service operated in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff worked effectively with other organisations to ensure that people were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was caring.

People spoke positively about the quality of relationships and the caring nature of staff.

Staff ensured that people were able to express their preferences and exercise choice.

Staff were aware of people’s right to privacy and dignity and provided support accordingly.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care which was recorded in appropriate detail in their care records.

The service had a robust complaints procedure, and people receiving support and their relatives understood how to complain.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 February 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had responded positively and in a timely manner to issues arising from the previous inspection.

The service had a clear vision and set of values that reflected best-practice in supported living services.

The service had a robust approach to safety and quality auditing that identified issues and resulted in action.