You are here

Supported Independence Personal Assistance & Domiciliary Support Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

South Suffolk Support Living and Domiciliary provides care and support to people living in two ‘supported living’ settings, 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. South Suffolk Support Living and Domiciliary also provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

At the time of this announced inspection of 31 January 2018 there were 11 people who used the service. Seven people were living in ‘supported living’ settings and four people received domiciliary care in their own homes. The provider was given up to 48 hours’ notice because it is a small service and we wanted to be certain the registered managers and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to seek agreements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out their experience of the service. This service was registered with CQC on 15 December 2016.

Two registered managers were in post. 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.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the service provided and the approach of the support workers. They told us that they were kind, compassionate and respectful towards them. They described how they received safe and effective care by support workers they trusted, who understood their needs and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

The leadership team were a visible presence which meant that support workers were aware of the values of the provider and understood their roles and responsibilities. Morale was good within the workforce.

People were safe and support workers knew what actions to take to protect them from abuse. The provider had processes in place to identify and manage risk. People’s care needs were assessed, planned for and delivered to achieve positive outcomes. These were regularly reviewed and reflected individual needs and preferences.

Recruitment checks were carried out with sufficient numbers of support workers employed who had the knowledge and skills through regular supervision and training to meet people’s needs.

Where people required assistance with their medications, safe systems were followed. Support workers were provided with training in infection control and food hygiene and understood their responsibilities relating to these areas. Systems were in place to reduce the risks of cross infection.

Where support workers had identified concerns in people’s wellbeing there were systems in place to contact health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Where required, people were safely supported with their dietary needs.

People, and or, their representatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and support arrangements. As a result people received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.

Support workers listened to people and acted on what they said. They understood the need to obtain consent when providing care. They had completed training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Procedures and guidance in relation to the MCA were followed which included steps that the provider should take to comply with legal requirements.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the care they received. People’s feedback was valued and acted on.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse and harm.

Risks were identified and reviewed in a timely manner.

There were sufficient numbers of support workers who had been recruited safely to meet people�s needs.

People received their medicines in a safe and timely manner.

Support workers received training in infection control and food hygiene and understood their responsibilities relating to these areas.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was effective.

The service worked with other professionals to provide people with a consistent service.

Support workers received supervision and training to support them to perform their role.

Where required people were safely supported with their dietary needs.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services.

People told us they were asked for their consent before any care, treatment and/or support was provided.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was caring.

Support workers were kind and considerate, respected people�s preferences and treated them with dignity and respect.

People and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and these decisions were respected.

People�s independence was promoted and respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People contributed to the planning of their care and support. This was regularly reviewed and amended to meet changing needs.

People's concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was well-led.

The management team were approachable and had a visible presence in the service.

Support workers were encouraged to professionally develop by the management team and understood their roles and responsibilities.

People, relatives and employees were encouraged to contribute to decisions to improve and develop the service.

Effective systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies