You are here

Your Choice Assisted Living Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

Your Choice Assisted Living is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as a supported living service where care and support is provided to people in supported living houses who may have a learning disability, a mental health illness or behaviour that challenges. At the time of inspection, the service provided care and support to 23 people in total. However, only seven of these people received personal care which was the regulated activity; one person was on holiday and another person in hospital. This report only looked at the regulated activity of the service.

People either lived on their own, or with one other person, in houses in Bideford and the surrounding areas. People had tenancy agreements with Little White Town Limited. The same provider owned both Your Choice and Little White Town, but they were run and managed as separate organisations.

The inspection team took place on 19 and 20 September 2017 and was announced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector on both days. This was the first inspection since the service was registered in July 2016.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People were supported by sufficient staff to meet their needs. Staff had the required recruitment checks in place, were trained and had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff had received an induction and were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and how to report concerns. Staff enjoyed their work and felt listened to. They had confidence in the management team and felt valued at work.

People had individual care plans in place and these reflected people’s needs and gave staff clear guidance about how to reduce risks and support them safely. They were personalised and families had been involved in their development. Accidents and incidents were reported and action was taken to reduce the risks of recurrence. People were referred promptly to health care services when required and accompanied to health care appointments.

Staff knew the people they supported, their personal histories and daily preferences. They had developed close and trusting relationships they supported and knew them well. They worked closely with the family and other professionals. Staff showed concern for people’s wellbeing in a caring and meaningful way.

People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities in the local community. Links had been made with the local community and people were encouraged to lead fulfilling lives.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet. They received their prescribed medicines at the right time.

People and relatives expressed satisfaction with the management of the service. They felt listened to and able to raise any concerns which they were confident would be dealt with. The registered manager actively sought the views of people, their relatives and staff. This was through regular staff meetings, being visible within the service and questionnaires.

There were some quality monitoring systems in place. However, the registered manager had identified these needed improving to cover more areas. The management team had recently expanded and a manager and assistant manager were employed to help with this.

The group houses were managed to keep people safe. Any repairs and maintenance were dealt with under the tenancy agreements.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was safe.

People had confidence in the service they received and felt safe and well looked after. Staff were recruited in a safe way and staff employed who would complement people who used the service.

People�s individual risks were assessed and reduced as far as possible, whilst maintaining independence and respecting choices.

People were protected from harm because staff understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. Staff undertook training on the protection of vulnerable adults.

People were supported by the right numbers of staff allocated to their care. They received the medicines they were prescribed and in a safe way.

Accidents and incidents were reported, analysed and action taken to reduce the risks of recurrence.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was effective.

The service ensured people received effective care and support which met their needs, preferences, choices and wishes.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff received training, supervision and appraisals to monitor their work.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and

how it applied to their practice.

People were supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services and were accompanied to attend regular appointments. Staff recognised any deterioration in people�s health and sought medical advice appropriately.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind staff who treated people with respect and respected their choices. Relatives were involved and consulted about people�s support where appropriate.

Staff supported people in a personalised and individualised way. They knew people and their families well and enjoyed their work.

Staff showed concern for people�s wellbeing in a caring and meaningful way. They had developed warm and caring relationships with them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. This was focussed on their well-being and quality of life. Care plans reflected people�s individual needs.

Arrangements were in place for people to have their individual needs regularly assessed, recorded and reviewed.

People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities in the wider community.

People and relatives felt they would be listened to if they raised any concerns and that they would be dealt with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager was visible at the service and ensured staff provided a quality service.

There were quality monitoring systems in place. The registered manager had addressed any shortfalls and put improved plans in place.

Staff were motivated, felt part of a team and listened to. They felt supported and valued.