You are here

Choice Supported Living - West Midlands Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

Our inspection was announced and took place on 11 October 2016. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because we wanted to make sure staff were available to answer any questions we had or provide information that we needed. We also wanted the registered manager to ask people who used the service if we could visit them in their home. This was the first inspection of the service since the change of legal entity took place on 01 October 2016.

The service is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to 5 people who were living in their own home’s within three separate ‘supported living’ facilities.

There was a registered manager in post and they were present during our inspection. 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.

There were systems in place to ensure that the service was assessed and the quality of care provided to people was monitored. We found that these had not always identified where some improvements were needed. However, we found that the registered manager was responsive and took action to ensure improvements were made.

People felt safe using the service and they were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had systems in place to minimise the risk of abuse.

People were supported by staff that were kind, caring and respectful and knew them well. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were supported to make everyday decisions themselves, which helped them to maintain their independence.

Staff understood people’s needs well. Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their role. Staff had a good understanding of risks associated with people’s care needs and knew how to support them. There were enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment procedures ensured that only staff of a suitable character to care for people were employed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

People were protected from harm because staff were able to recognise abuse and take the appropriate actions to raise concerns.

Risks to the health and safety of people were known by staff so that they were able to provide safe care and support.

There were sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff to ensure that people’s needs were met safely.

People received support to take their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was effective.

People received care and support that met their day to day needs.

People were supported by staff who had received training and support to meet their needs.

People were supported by staff that ensured people were involved in decisions about their care and support.

People were supported with their dietary needs and the service worked with other professionals to ensure that people maintained their health and wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that respected their privacy and dignity.

People were supported to make choices about the care they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was effective

People where possible were involved in planning their care and were supported by staff who communicated with them in ways they could understand.

Systems were in place to gather the views of people receiving a service.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was not always effective

Although some systems were in place to improve the service the monitoring and quality assurance processes did not always identify shortfalls and required improvements.

There was a registered manager in place. We saw that the registered manager was open and inclusive.