You are here

Stockport, East Cheshire, High Peak, Urmston & District Cerebral Palsy Society Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 September 2017

This inspection took place on 14 and 16 August 2017 and was announced. This was the provider's first ratings inspection. The service provides personal care to young adults and children with physical and learning disabilities in their own homes and the community. There were 11 people receiving personal care support from the service at the time of the inspection.

There was a manager in post who was in the process of registering with us. 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 safeguarded from harm and the risk of abuse because staff and managers knew what to do if they suspected abuse. Risks of harm to people were assessed and minimised through the effective use of risk assessments. People were kept safe whilst their independence was promoted.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to safely meet the needs of people. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures when employing new staff to ensure they were of good character and fit to work with people.

People were consenting to or when they lacked mental capacity were being supported to consent to their care and support.

Staff were supported and trained to fulfil their roles effectively. Staff were trained to administer people's medicines safely when required to.

People were supported to eat and drink food of their choice to remain healthy. If people became unwell or their health needs changed, staff gained the appropriate health care support in a timely manner.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy was upheld. People were encouraged to be as independent as they were able.

People received care and support that met their individual needs and preferences. People's care was regularly reviewed and reflective of their current needs.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people knew who to and how to complain of they needed to.

People were asked their views on the service they received and there were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 September 2017

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from harm as staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse and followed the provider's safeguarding procedures.

Risks of harm to people were minimised through the effective use of risk assessments.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff who had been employed through safe recruitment procedures.

Staff had received training to support people with their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 September 2017

The service was effective.

People who used the service were supported by staff who were trained and competent in their roles.

The principles of the MCA 2005 were being followed to ensure people who lacked capacity were being supported by their representative to consent to their care.

People were supported to eat and drink in a way that met their individual needs.

When people became unwell or their needs changed health care advice and support was sought.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 September 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

People were encouraged to be as independent as they were able to be.

People's right to privacy was upheld.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People received a service that was personalised and met their individual needs and preferences.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people knew how to complain if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 September 2017

The service was well led.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff were regularly asked their views on the service and the provider was responsive to people's opinions.

The systems the provider had in place to monitor and improve the service were effective.

Staff were supported to fulfil and improve their roles.