You are here

Archived: Lancashire Branch Office Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

This inspection took place on 28, 29, 30 March and 3 April 2017. We gave the service short notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available throughout the inspection.

Lancashire Branch Office is registered to provide supported living for older people and younger adults living with a learning disability, dementia, mental health, physical disability and sensory impairments across Lancashire. The main office is based in Burnley which provided facilities for staff training, meetings and engagement with people who used the service. At the time of our inspection the service supported people in 119 addresses and 285 people were receiving care from the service.

The service had registered manager 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.

This inspection was the first inspection since the service was registered with the Commission on 10 June 2016. During this inspection we found the service was meeting the requirements of the current legislation. However we made a recommendation in relation to peoples care records.

All staff we spoke with aware of the signs of abuse and the actions to take if they suspected abuse. Staff received training to ensure they had the knowledge of protecting people for the risks of abuse.

There was a detailed and comprehensive medicines policy in place. The registered manager confirmed actions they were taking to ensure polices included up to date information on the management of “as required” medicines and medicated creams.

Recruitment and selection procedures were robust and records confirmed applications, references and proof of identity checks had been completed. Staff had received the relevant training to enable them to meet people’s needs safely.

Staff spoken with had an understanding of the principles of the MCA 2005. The registered manager told us referrals to the local authority was made for Deprivation of Liberty Assessments. This protected people who used the service from the risk of unsafe restrictions.

Staff we spoke with understood people’s individual needs, choice, likes and wishes and how to deliver good care. People who used the service and relatives were positive about the care they received and told us people’s individual care needs was discussed with them.

People were treated with dignity and respect. When people received support with their care needs this was done in the privacy of their bedrooms or bathroom.

People who used the service and relatives told us they had been involved in the development and reviews of their care files. Care records reflected people's, needs, choices, likes and preferences and how to support them. However we saw care files lacked consistency in their content in a number of the services we visited. The registered manager gave us assurances this issue would be addressed.

People who used the service we spoke with told us they undertook a variety of activities of their choice.

People knew how to raise a complaint. Records we looked at confirmed an effective system in place for dealing with complaints. We received positive feedback about the service.

The feedback from people who used the service, relatives and staff was positive about the management and leadership of the service. People were complimentary about the registered manager as well as senior staff responsible in the services we visited.

Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. There was evidence of completed audits which included notes of findings and actions taken.

There was evidence that team meetings took place regularly. The registered manager told us they had introduced a meeting with s

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was safe.

People were cared for by staff that had been recruited safely. Duty rotas were completed for each individual address and appropriate arrangements were in place to cover any staff absence.

People were cared for in a safe environment. There was a comprehensive procedure for staff to follow when dealing with any allegations of abuse.

Medicines were managed safely in people’s homes. Policies and procedures were in place and accessible for all staff to provide guidance on the management of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had received the required training to meet people’s needs.

Records confirmed assessments of people’s dietary needs were recorded and support was provided with meals when required.

People had access to healthcare services as appropriate.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was caring.

We received positive feedback about the care people received. It was clear staff understood people’s individual needs, likes and choices.

We observed people being treated with dignity and respect during our observations in people’s houses

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records reflected people's, care needs and preferences. However some care plans lacked consistency across the organisation and had not been regularly reviewed. We recommend that the provider seek nationally recognised guidance in relation to peoples care records.

People participated in a variety of activities of their choice.

People knew how to complain. There was an effective system in place for dealing with complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was well-led.

The feedback from people who used the service, relatives and staff was positive about the management and leadership of the service.

Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

Regular meetings were held to obtain feedback from staff, management and people who used the service.