GUTU

Updated 17 October 2024

Date of assessment: 14 to 29 April 2025. GUTU, also known by the provider’s name Time4U Ltd, provides care and support to people living in supported living houses and flats. The service supports younger and older adults with a learning disability and autistic people, as well as those with physical and mental health support needs. At the time of this assessment there were 31 people receiving personal care support from this service. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is to help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

People received support tailored to their individual needs and risks and staff knew them well. Staff recently underwent additional training, and their competence and practice were regularly monitored by the management. People were supported by consistent staff teams and received safe help with their medicines, to do things they liked and to build their skills to become more independent. Staff treated people with kindness and respect and involved them in their care. People were supported to have equitable access to other healthcare and social care services and staff supported them to communicate in a way which met their needs. The provider now had clear systems for speaking up and regularly asked people’s relatives, staff and other stakeholders for their feedback on the service. The governance and quality assurances systems and processes had been reviewed and improved. Staff felt supported by the leadership which was approachable and visible in the service. The provider had now developed an improved organisational and staff support structures and reviewed their recording and reporting systems. However, some service improvement actions had not yet been fully completed or embedded at the time of this assessment. For example, further work was required around some elements of people’s support records, learning and sharing lessons from incidents and accidents and service design to align it with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance.

Updated 17 October 2024

Not all supported people were able to communicate verbally. Where people used other methods of communication, such as simple signs or pictures, we gathered their feedback via those methods of communication and observations of their interactions with staff supporting them. People’s relatives told us they felt people were safe with staff and staff knew their individual support needs well. People were comfortable around staff and approached them freely for support. People’s relatives told us staff were supportive, caring and treated people with respect. Staff engaged with people, communicated with them in their preferred way and involved them in their support. We observed staff asking people for their choices and provided information in a way which they could understand. When people became anxious, staff knew how to support and reassure them. People’s relatives told us staff supported people to access healthcare and other services they needed and worked well with them to review and adjust people’s support when needed. People’s relatives told us overall support provided by staff helped their loved ones to cope better with difficult situations and to settle into their new homes. People were supported to overcome difficulties they had and to go out and do things which improved their overall quality of life and independence. Although, it was not always clear in their support records how their individual preferences were discussed and goals set with them which the provider recognised as a service improvement need. People were comfortable in their own homes and supported to maintain a safe living environment.