We carried out a review of the data available to us about Striving For Independence Care Solutions on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Striving For Independence Care Solutions, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
There were measures in place to minimise the risk of relatives and friends, professionals and others visiting from spreading infections at the entrance and on entering the premises. The service shared information and communication with friends and family about current infections, so they were informed about decisions around visiting and restrictions. There was a designated room for visitors to complete lateral flow tests when they arrived at the care home. Visitors were required to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand washing before and after visiting.
People were supported to use and access their environment safely. There was an up to date infection control policy in place and there were standard operating procedures that were regularly updated in line with changes in government policy. The service had identified people at particular risk of infection and were supported to minimise close physical contact by way of social distancing or isolation when needed. Staff were provided with appropriate PPE, which met recommended national guidance to carry out their role safely.
There were arrangements to manage infection risks. Staff and people receiving care had received all doses of the vaccine. Regular testing was also carried out for people, visitors and visiting professionals in order to identify any positive cases as early as possible so that people could self-isolate to reduce the spread of infection.
PPE was used in accordance with current government guidelines. There were designated areas for donning and doffing PPE. Signage on donning and doffing and handwashing was visible in all designated areas. The service had ensured there were sufficient supplies of PPE. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the service was able to reliably get hold of enough of the right PPE to meet people’s needs. Disposal of used PPE followed local protocols. This helped to assure the provider that people were protected and safe.
During the pandemic the provider promptly communicated with staff, people and relatives. This and regular communication with the host local authority, public health teams, community healthcare professionals and managers from other care homes helped to ensure the home carried out good IPC practice that kept people safe.
The care home provided accommodation, care and support for up six adults with complex needs, including learning disabilities and autism. At the time of this inspection five people were living at the care home. The care agency provided home care services to people within the local area. People using the service had varying needs, some were living with dementia and needed a range of support including personal care, prompting and monitoring. Times and days of visits varied to suit individual need. At the time of the inspection approximately five people were receiving personal care in their own homes from the care agency.
This inspection took place on 30 October 2017 and was unannounced. This was the first comprehensive inspection of the service since it was re-registered under the provider, Striving For Independence Care Limited in November 2016. Prior to this, Pettsgrove Care Home had been inspected in April 2016 under the previous provider, Striving for Independence Homes LLP, at which time it was rated “Good”.
We have combined the reporting on the services provided by the care home and the care agency. Where the evidence we found related to one service we have reported this separately.
A registered manager was employed at the service and had been in the role since the service was set up. The registered manager was registered for both the care home and the care agency. 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.
Appropriate policies and procedures ensured people who used the service were safe from abuse and harm. People’s relatives told us people were safe living at the care home or in receipt of care from the care agency.
People who used the service had various risk assessments and risk management plans, which ensured they were protected from harm in relation to their care. Individual risks faced by people supported in their own homes were identified with plans in place to control the risks. Environmental risks were identified at the initial assessment to ensure people and staff were kept safe from hazards inside and outside people’s homes.
The service monitored accidents and incidents and learning from these was used to improve the service. We saw that accidents and incidents were appropriately documented and investigated.
There were enough staff available at the care home and to provide personal care for people in their own homes. Staff employed were appropriately checked to ensure they were suitable to work with people who used the service.
Medicines were managed safely and people who used the service received their medicines on time.
Staff had access to a variety of training, which helped them to update and maintain the skills and knowledge in relation to providing care to people. Regular supervisions and appraisals were provided to review staff performance and set learning objectives for the future.
People who used the service had choice of a nutritious, health and well balanced diet. The service ensured that people’s health was monitored and if required external health care support was sought to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained.
CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was appropriately applied and applications to deprive people of their liberty lawfully had been made to prevent them from coming to any harm where they lacked capacity. The service understood their legal responsibility under this act. Decisions that needed to be made in people's best interests had been undertaken.
Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported. They had a clear understanding of people's individual needs, preferences and routines.
Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible. There were policies and systems in place to support this practice.
People told us they received care that was responsive to their needs. They were supported to participate in activities, interests and hobbies of their choice.
There was a complaints policy and procedure available and confidentiality was maintained. People had access to independent advocacy services.
There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan on-going improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people’s views about the running of the home.