Shine House

Updated 27 January 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 27 November 2017, and was undertaken by one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their involvement was talking with people using the service to ask them their views of the service.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often at one of the supported living schemes as part of their managerial roles. We needed to be sure that they would be available for the inspection visit.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.”

Before the inspection, we checked for any notifications made to us by the provider and the information we held on our database about the service and provider. Statutory notifications are pieces of information about important events which took place at the service, such as safeguarding incidents, which the provider is required to send to us by law.

On the day of the inspection there were nine people living at the service with a tenth person in the process of gradually moving in. Inspection site visit activity started and ended on 27 November 2017. It included a visit to the service to meet people living there, the staff working with them, and to check records kept at the service. We also carried out observations of people's interactions with staff. There were nine people living at the service at the time of our inspection visit with another person in the process of moving in. During the inspection, we spoke with four people using the service, one support staff, the deputy manager who also provided care support to people, and the registered manager.

We reviewed the care records for two people living at the service to see if they were up-to-date and reflective of the care which people received. We also looked at personnel records for two members of staff, including details of their recruitment, training and supervision. We reviewed further records relating to the management of the service, including staffing rotas and quality assurance processes, to see how the service was run. We checked that essential services to the building had been maintained. We then requested further specific information about the management of the service from the registered manager and deputy manager following our visit.

Updated 27 January 2018

This was the first inspection of this service. It provides care and support to people with mental health needs who have a forensic history.

The service provides care and support to people living in one house so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service had a registered manager, which 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 very positive about living at the service. They told us staff were kind and caring and they felt safe living there. Staff understood about safeguarding people from abuse and what to do if they had any concerns.

People’s needs were identified and responded to well. The service was very effective at working in co-operation with other organisations to deliver good care and support. This included where people’s needs had changed, and where people needed on-going healthcare support.

Risk assessments were drawn up integrating people’s views and care records were person centred. People were encouraged to reach their full potential, and were encouraged to volunteer and find paid work. The registered manager told us people were encouraged to ‘move on’ to independent accommodation from the day they moved in.

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 at the service supported this practice.

People living at the service took responsibility for cleaning communal areas with support from staff and the provider ensured people were protected from the spread of infection.

Medicines were safely managed and people were encouraged to administer their own medicines if they were able.

People living at the service, relatives and health and social care professionals all praised the service and were positive about the activities, the environment and the management of the service.

The service was well led by a proactive provider, registered manager and deputy manager providing management cover. Staff told us they felt well supported and could contribute to how the service was run. Quality audits took place to ensure good standards of care were provided and the electronic care and monitoring system meant that management oversight was prompted and evidenced when incidents occurred.

The provider had a clear vision and credible strategy to deliver high-quality care and support. The strategy was well-embedded at this service. Systems at the service supported continuous learning and improvement.