You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

This inspection was announced and took place on 4 May 2017. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming to ensure that the people we needed to talk to would be available. This was the service’s first inspection since being registered with CQC.

Bourne-Citizen provides 24 hour care and support to seven people with learning disabilities who live in their own homes in Bournemouth. Bourne-Citizen also provides social support to people with learning disabilities in the community.

The registered manager was also the provider. 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.

Two people who we met and spoke with were happy and relaxed with staff. Relatives told us they were very satisfied and happy with the service their family members received and they did not raise any concerns with us.

People received care and support in a personalised way. Staff knew people well and understood their needs and the way they communicated. We found that people received the health, personal and social care support they needed.

People’s medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

One person told us they felt safe and the other person was relaxed with staff which may have indicated they were comfortable with staff. Staff knew how to recognise any signs of abuse and how they could report any allegations.

Any risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed to minimise risks. We saw people were supported to take part and try new activities and experiences in their homes and in the community.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People and staff had good relationships. People had access to the local community and had individual activities provided. People’s important relationships with their relatives were supported and maintained.

Staff received an induction, core training and some specialist training so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff felt they were well supported by the management team.

People knew how to raise concerns or complaints. People and relatives were regularly consulted.

The culture within the service was personalised and open. There was a clear management structure and staff and people felt comfortable talking to the managers about any issues and were sure that any concerns would be addressed. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were managed safely.

Staff knew how to recognise and report any allegations of abuse.

We found staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to make sure people had the care and support they needed.

Any risks to people were identified and managed in order to keep people safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training to ensure they could carry out their roles effectively. Supervision and spot check processes were in place to enable staff to receive feedback on their performance.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people were asked for their consent before support was given to them.

People who had specialist dietary needs had these met.

People accessed the services of healthcare professionals as appropriate.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was caring.

Care was provided with kindness and compassion by staff who treated people with respect and dignity.

Staff understood how to provide care in a dignified manner and respected people’s right to privacy.

Family and friends relationships were maintained and they continued to play a part in in their family member’s care and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was responsive to people and their needs.

Staff understood people’s complex ways of communicating.

People’s needs were fully assessed before they started using the service.

People were supported to pursue activities and interests that were important to them.

People and relatives knew how to complain or raise concerns about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was well-led. Observations and feedback from people, staff and professionals showed us the service had a positive and open culture.

Feedback was regularly sought from people, staff and relatives.

There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. There was learning from accidents, and incidents.