You are here

Manu Integrity Services Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

This inspection took place on 27 February and 5 March 2018. The inspection was announced. This meant the registered provider was given 48 hours' notice of our inspection visit. This was because the location provides a small domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to meet with us. This was our first inspection of the service.

Manu Integrity is registered to provide personal care to adults with learning disabilities, physical disability, mental health needs, drug and alcohol addiction and older people in their own homes and community.

Not everyone using Manu Integrity receives the regulated activity, personal care. Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection Manu Integrity were supporting five people with the regulated activity.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their relatives were overwhelmingly positive about the service. There were systems in place to protect people from harm, including how medicines were managed. Staff were trained in how to recognise and respond to abuse and understood their responsibility to report any concerns to the management team.

Safe recruitment processes were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken, which made sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people.

People were supported in a kind, caring way that took account of their individual needs and preferences. People and their families were supported to express their views and be involved in decisions about their care.

People who used the service had the capacity to make decisions about what they did and the choices they made. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible: the policies and systems supported this practice.

Staff were supported to provide appropriate care to people because they were trained, supervised and appraised. There was an induction, training and development programme, which supported staff to gain relevant knowledge and skills.

People were supported to maintain their health by being supported to access a range of health care professionals.

People were able to raise any concerns they may have had. We saw the service user guide included ‘how to make a complaint’.

People were encouraged to give their views about the quality of the care provided to help drive up standards. Quality monitoring systems were in place and the registered manager had overall responsibility to ensure lessons were learned and action was taken to continuously improve the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse.

Individual risks had been assessed and identified as part of the support and care planning process.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the registered provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There was a recruitment system in place that helped the registered provider make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. There was enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs

Effective

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were provided with relevant training and supervision to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge to support people who used the service safely and to a good standard.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to ensure the rights of people with limited mental capacity to make decisions were respected.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was caring

People who used the service and their relatives told us they were happy with the care and support they received to help them maintain their independence.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate and maintained people's privacy and dignity.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and staff took account of their individual needs and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s health, care and support needs were assessed and individual choices and preferences were discussed with people who used the service.

We saw people’s support plans had been updated regularly and were written in a format that was suitable for them to understand.

People were given information on how to make a complaint. It was written in a format that was suitable for them to understand.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was well led.

Staff told us they felt they were part of a good team. Staff said the registered manager was approachable and communication was good within the service.

People were not put at risk because systems for monitoring quality were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

Surveys were sent out to people, relatives and staff members as a means of gaining feedback on the service.