You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

This inspection was carried out on 21 and 22 August 2017. It was the first inspection carried out since the provider moved locations in August 2016. COOCI Associates LLP is a case management service. Their purpose is to support people who have experienced catastrophic or life changing injuries. The service acts as an intermediary between the person needing the support and specialist agencies who supply the care (support workers).Case managers are responsible for ensuring people’s needs are met. They also support people to employ their own staff, for example support workers and/or therapists. At the time of the inspection there were four people receiving personal care.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 told us they felt safe using the service. The provider had systems in place to assess the risks to people and their environment. Where risks were identified these had been minimised. The risks to people and staff were kept under constant review. Trends were identified and action taken to prevent a reoccurrence where possible.

Staff received training in how to identify signs of abuse. Records showed appropriate action had been taken where concerns were raised. This helped protect people from harm.

Safe recruitment systems were in place to ensure as far as possible staff were suitable to work with people. Staff were trained and received support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. They were encouraged to feedback ideas to assist with the improvement of the service, through supervision, meetings and general discussion.

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. The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA).

People and relatives told us the staff were supportive and described them as friendly, polite and understanding. Examples were given to us of the caring nature of the case managers, which demonstrated how kind and considerate the staff were.

People were involved in the planning and review of their care. Regular meetings were held with people to ensure they were happy with the delivery of care and any changes that may have been required. People were supported to be as independent as possible. People’s dreams and wants were explored with them to ensure personal goals where feasible were fulfilled.

The provider ensured information was made available to people in a format they could understand, where necessary translators were used to ensure information sharing was clear and concise.

People with protected characteristics had been assisted by the service to achieve their own goals and their preferences and their lifestyles were respected.

The provider’s complaints policy set out how people could make complaints and these would be taken seriously. Where a complaint had been made, this was followed through and used to drive improvements in the service delivery.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the partners of the service. There was an open culture of communication, and staff supported each other. Quality assurance checks and feedback from people, relative’s staff and professionals was used to drive forward improvements to the service.

Staff understood the aim of the service and worked together to accomplish providing good quality and effective care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

The service was safe.

People’s safety and well-being had been considered by the service and steps had been taken to ensure that any risk of harm had been assessed.

The provider had systems in place to ensure checks were carried out prior to candidate’s being offered employment. This minimised the risk of unsuitable candidates working with people.

People were protected from harm, as staff knew how to protect people from abuse and who to report concerns to.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

The service was effective.

People’s health was monitored and when necessary external professionals were contacted to provide support to people on maintaining good health.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how this applied to their role.

Staff received appropriate training and on-going support through regular meetings on a one to one basis with senior staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who demonstrated a caring nature and who were knowledgeable about people’s needs and the care required.

People were able to communicate with staff in a way that was meaningful to them. Systems were in place to encourage effective communication with people.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Systems were in place to provide people with protected characteristics the support they needed in an inclusive way.

People were encouraged to maximise their quality of life by pursuing their ambitions and dreams.

People knew how to raise concerns. When people had raised concerns these were dealt with quickly and appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager, senior staff and partners of the service provided effective leadership and management. This was valued by the staff and people using the service.

There were clear visions and values for the service. There was a shared philosophy of person centred care, which enhanced the service to people.

The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and took appropriate action to improve the standards when necessary.