You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 September 2018

This unannounced comprehensive inspection was carried out on 25 and 26 July 2018. This was our first inspection of the service since it had registered with CQC.

At the time of our inspection the Wallasey Project provided care and support to 24 people living in their own homes, in order to support them to 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 people supported in their own homes; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service is provided by Wirral Independent Living Services Ltd (WILS), who also run another supported living service from its head office in the Birkenhead area of the Wirral. WILS aim to provide specialist support services to individuals who may have a range of complex needs, which may include a severe mental illness, learning disability, physical disability, alcohol dependency, substance misuse or homelessness.

The service had a registered manager, who had worked for the organisation for many years. 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. The day-to-day operation of the service was managed by the service manager, who was several weeks away from completing a Level 5 NVQ in Management and was in the process of applying to CQC as a registered manager.

During this inspection we found that the service was performing well in most areas. However, the service was not keeping appropriate records of the medication that people had been supported to take. Staff recorded that they had supported the person with their medication in the daily records but they did not specifically record each medication that they had supported the person to take. This was not in line with the relevant national guidance on managing people’s medicines in the community.

Staff, who had appropriate training and experience, provided people with appropriate support with their medication. The staff told us that they were confident supporting people with their medication and assisted people to take the right medication at the right times. The staff were knowledgeable about people’s medication needs and people told us that the staff were very helpful with this.

Overall, staff were safely recruited and were supported with a thorough induction process. Criminal records checks, known as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) records, were carried out. We also saw that official identification, such as a passport or driving licence and verified references from the most recent employers were also kept in staff files. However, in one of the recruitment files we reviewed we saw that the member of staff’s references were missing. We discussed this with the senior management at the service who explained that they were unable to account for how or why this information was missing. Based on other information in the file we were reassured that references for this longstanding member of staff were originally obtained but had been misplaced.

We saw that people’s care plans were person-centred and provided staff with the information they needed to meet people’s needs. They also contained relevant risk assessments, which were reviewed regularly and gave staff the information needed to safely manage these risks.

The service had systems in place to protect people from abuse and staff demonstrated a good understanding of this when we spoke with them. They were able to demonstrate the actions they would take in the event of a person being at risk of harm. Records showed that safeguarding concerns were promptly and effectively managed by staff with oversight from the registered manager. The service was also meeting its obliga

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 September 2018

The service was not always safe.

The service was not keeping appropriate records of the medication that people had been supported to take.

One of the staff recruitment files was missing the member of staff�s references.

There were systems in place to safeguard people from abuse.

People had personalised risk assessments in their care files which gave staff the information required to safely manage any risks.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 September 2018

The service was effective.

The majority of staff had received timely supervisions and appraisals.

Staff were given appropriate training and induction to effectively meet people�s needs.

The service ensured that people consented to the care they received.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 September 2018

The service was caring.

People told us the staff were caring and they had good relationships with them.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The service supported people to maintain their independence

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 September 2018

People�s care plans were person-centred and gave staff the information they needed to deliver personalised care.

People knew how to complain and told us they felt able to do so if needed.

People were supported to enjoy hobbies and interests that were important to them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 September 2018

The service was well-led.

There was experienced and strong leadership at the service with clear lines of accountability.

The service had a range of systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service being provided.

There was a positive and caring culture amongst staff at the service.