You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

This inspection took place on 22 August 2017 and was announced. 24 hours before the inspection we contacted the service to let them know that we will be coming to inspect them. We wanted to make sure that someone would be available on the day of inspection. This is the first inspection for this service which was registered in August 2016.

YourLife (Raynes Park) service provides personal care to people living in their own homes within Liberty House, an extra care housing service that also offers communal facilities for dining and activities. The service provides support for people over 70 years old. At the time of our inspection nine people were using the service.

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.

Staff knew potential risks to people and supported them to manage the risks, which ensured that people were protected from poor care. The service carried out risk assessments for people, however the likelihood and severity of the risks occurring was not assessed. We have made a recommendation about this. People were supported to take their medicines in line with good practice. Staff followed the service’s procedures to ensure that people received the necessary support to take their medicines as prescribed. However, we found that staff were not provided with guidelines on how to support a person if they were not at home at the time they had to take their medicines. We raised our concerns with the registered manager and noted few days later the guidelines were in place.

Staff supported people to be safe from potential abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff to support people with their care needs. The service followed safe staff recruitment processes to ensure that staff were skilled to provide good care for people.

The service provided staff with necessary training to ensure they had sufficient knowledge to assist people with their individual needs. The registered manager carried out regular supervision and appraisal meetings to support staff in their role. Staff had an adequate understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People told us their nutritional needs were met and staff were flexible to accommodate their food choices. The service provided assistance for people with their health appointments when they required it.

People told us they had a choice of activities to attend and staff supported them when required. Staff talked to people about the support they wanted. People made decisions about their care provision themselves where possible. People and their relatives felt that staff were kind and respectful. Staff supported people to learn to use equipment, which promoted their independence.

People told us that staff knew what was important to them and provided support in the way they wished. Staff regularly contacted relatives to ensure they were involved in people’s care. Robust systems were in place for staff to share information as necessary. This ensured that staff were aware of the activities taking place at the service. People and their relatives were regularly asked for feedback about the service, which provided them with opportunities to share their experiences.

Staff told us the management team provided good leadership at the service. The staff team worked together to ensure good care provision for people. This included staff sharing the work load as necessary. Staff made suggestions to the management team to imp

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service was safe. Staff supported people to stay safe from potential abuse. The service provided staff cover as required to ensure that people�s needs were met. There were safe recruitment systems in place to ensure suitable staff were employed in line with good practice.

Staff followed the service�s risk management plans to protect people from avoidable harm. We have made a recommendation about these.

People received their medicines in line with their prescriptions.

People received their medicines in line with their prescriptions. However, we saw that guidelines were not available for staff if a person was not at the service when they had to take their medicines. After discussing this with the registered manager these were developed.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service was effective. Staff attended training, which ensured they had the knowledge and skills to support people with their care needs. Staff were supported through regular supervisions and appraisals.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and supported people to make choices about the care they wished to receive.

People had access to sufficient amounts of food and drink to meet their nutritional needs. The service monitored people�s health care needs as required to ensure their good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service was caring. Staff encouraged people to access activities and enhanced their independence where possible.

People were involved in their care needs assessment and had access to information about them.

People told us their privacy and dignity were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service was responsive. Staff knew people�s care and support needs well and provided support according to their decisions. Staff shared information to ensure that the required actions were taken as necessary.

Relatives were involved in people�s care as much as they wished to.

People were supported to raise their concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 September 2017

The service was well-led. Staff told us the manager was a good leader. Staff worked together as a team to provide good services for people. The management team encouraged staff to make suggestions and to develop the service.

The registered manager had carried out regular audits to improve the quality of the care and support provided for people.