You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 October 2017

This inspection was carried out on 28 September 2017 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because we needed to be sure that people who wanted to speak to us were available during the inspection. This was the first inspection of Viking Care.

Viking Care provides personal care for people with a learning disability or autism in their own home, some people were living with sensory impairments. Some people lived together in a shared house, they had their own bedrooms and shared communal areas such as the kitchen and lounge.

A registered manager was leading the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the care and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager had not informed CQC of one significant event that had happened at the service, so we could check that appropriate action had been taken. They sent us the notification following our inspection and took action to make sure notifications were sent without delay in the future.

Staff were kind and caring to people and treated them with dignity and respect at all times. People were supported to be as independent as they could be and took part in activities they enjoyed each day. Staff knew the signs of abuse and were confident to raise any concerns they had with the registered manager. Systems were in place to manage complaints received.

Assessments of people’s needs had been completed to identify any changes. Detailed guidance was provided to staff about how to meet people’s needs. People’s care plans had been reviewed and changed when people’s preferences changed, to keep them safe and help them to be independent. Possible risks to people had been identified and people were supported to stay as safe as possible, while remaining independent. Staff had the skills to communicate with people in ways that they understood.

People were supported to attend regular health checks and had support to manage their health needs. They were supported to take the medicines they needed to keep them well. People were offered advice and guidance about a healthy diet. People who needed assistance were supported to prepare their own meals.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) had been met. The registered manager knew when assessments of people’s capacity to make decisions were needed. Staff assumed people had capacity and respected the decisions they made. When people needed help to make a particular decision staff helped them. Decisions were made in people’s best interests with people who knew them well.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Applications to the Court of Protection had been made when required. People were supported to go out when they requested and be part of their community.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and deputy manager, they were motivated and enthusiastic about their roles. A manager was always available to provide the support and guidance staff needed. Staff shared the provider’s vision of a good quality service and they worked together to support people to be as independent as they wanted to be.

Checks had been completed to make sure the quality of the service was to the required standard. People, their relatives, staff and stakeholders had been asked for their views of the service.

There were enough staff, who knew people well, to meet their needs at all times. The registered manager had considered people’s needs when deciding which staff would support people. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and worked as a team to support people to achieve what they want

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 October 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people had been identified and action had been taken to support people to remain independent and keep them safe and well.

Staff knew how to keep people safe if they were at risk of abuse.

There were enough staff who knew people well, to provide the support people needed at all times.

Checks were completed on staff to make sure they were honest, trustworthy and reliable before they worked alone with people.

People were supported to take the medicines they needed.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff gave people information to help them make decisions and choices. When people could not make a decision, staff worked with them and other people who knew them well to make a decision in their best interest.

Staff had the skills they required to provide the care and support people needed.

Staff helped people understand about a healthy diet and respected the choices they made.

People were offered regular health checks and had support to attend healthcare appointments.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 October 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring to people.

People were given privacy and were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff had the skills to communicate with people in ways that they understood.

People were supported to be independent.

People were supported to be part of their community.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People planned their care and support with staff and staff gave people the support they wanted.

People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.

Systems were in place to resolve any concerns people had to their satisfaction.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 27 October 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider had not notified us of one notifiable event, however other authorities had been informed so they could take action.

Regular checks had been completed on the quality of the service.

The experiences of people, staff and stakeholders were used to improve the service.

Staff shared the provider’s vision of a good quality service.

Staff were motivated and led by the registered manager, and deputy manager. They had clear roles and responsibilities and were accountable for their actions.