Archived: Jigsaw Project

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in January 2015, the overall rating for the service was Good.

We carried out this unannounced inspection of the service on 15 and 17 February 2017. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good. The registered manager and provider showed the service continued to meet CQC regulations and fundamental standards.

People remained safe at Jigsaw Project. Staff knew how to identify and protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people were identified and managed appropriately to keep them safe from avoidable harm at the service and while in the community.

The provider ensured the service continued to have sufficient numbers of suitable staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Recruitment procedures remained safe to protect people from unsuitable staff. People continued to receive care from knowledgeable and skilled staff who were supported in their role. Staff supported people to take their medicines when needed. Medicines were managed and administered appropriately by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to do so. Staff had received regular supervision and support to monitor their performance and development needs. They attended regular training to help them undertake their role.

People’s dignity and privacy was upheld. Staff delivered people’s care and support in a caring and compassionate manner.

People were supported to access healthcare services to maintain their health and well-being. Staff encouraged people to eat healthy foods. People prepared their own meals as they lived independently in the community.

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 in the service supported this practice. Staff continued to provide people’s support in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People consented to care and treatment.

People received individualised care that met their needs and reflected their preferences and choices. Staff had sufficient guidance on how to provide support to people and to meet their needs. People were involved in making day to day decisions about their care. Staff regularly reviewed people’s needs and updated their care plans to reflect their changing needs and the support they required.

People continued to take part activities of their choosing and were supported to pursue their interests. People knew how to make a complaint about the quality of care and felt confident their concerns would be resolved. People had an opportunity to share their views about the quality of the care and their feedback was considered.

The service continued to be managed well. The registered manager drove improvements of the service through regular checks and audits of the quality of care. The service maintained close partnerships with other healthcare professionals in the delivery of good care to people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We found that staff received appropriate support, professional development, training and supervision, to enable them to provide a good service.

We saw evidence of close partnership work with mental health multi-disciplinary teams and other care partners, and that people's information was kept confidentially, and only released to people not working at the service with the person's consent, unless disclosure was required by law or by court order, or where necessary in the public interest. There was a consent policy in place, and people were asked to give signed consent for staff to share any information, if this was required to ensure that they received appropriate support. People were able to refuse their consent.

People were aware of the complaints system and told us they were confident that if they raised any concerns staff would investigate and respond to them in a fair and timely way.

Everyone had a named project worker, and monthly key work sessions took account of peoples personal needs, circumstances and wishes, and changes in their needs or circumstances had been noted. They felt able to ask for support, and were also confident that if they raised any issues or complaints these would be dealt with in a timely way.

One person told us that the staff 'provide what I need' and another said 'I am very fortunate to have them on-side.'

People told us that they had been involved and consulted in decisions about their care, treatment and support. They told us how they had been supported and encouraged to achieve their own personal goals, having their own letter box, managing their own medicines, going on particular trips they had chosen for themselves.

There were good service user participation and empowerment opportunities. The service had regular client meetings and a wider service user council to consult with people about how their support should be provided.