17 April 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.
The inspection took place on the 20 February 2018 and 22 February 2018. We gave 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit. The inspection was announced to ensure someone was at the office and to gain consent from people for a home visit from an inspector.
We visited the office location on the 20 February to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. It included phone calls to people who used the service and families.
The inspection team consisted of two inspectors 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. In this case the expert by experience had experience of service for people with disabilities and older care and people who lived with dementia.
Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the provider such as notifications and any information people had shared with us. We also spoke with the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams. We asked them for their views on the service and whether they had any concerns. We reviewed the information on the Provider Information Return (PIR). This form asks the provider to give some key information about the service. What the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, business administration manager,
deputy manager, and four care staff. We looked at six care records of people who used the service, four staff recruitment files, training records, medicines records and other records relating to the day-to-day running of the service. The expert by experience carried out telephone interviews with ten people who used either the service or their relatives on 20 February 2018.
17 April 2018
Our inspection of Bradford Supported Living Services was carried out on the 20 and 22 February 2018. We visited the office on the 20 February from which the services were managed. We visited some of people’s houses on the 22 February. The Inspection was announced and the service was given 24 hour s’ notice to ensure someone would be in the office.
We last inspected this service on 15, 28 June and 4 July 2016.
. This service provides care and support to people living in five ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home 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 care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 we with told us they felt safe and did not raise any concerns about the way they were treated. Staff were aware of the actions they would take to keep people safe if they were concerned someone was at risk of abuse. Appropriate systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm.
Overall risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were identified and action taken to manage the risk. We recommended the registered manager ensured more detailed information was recorded in plans so staff knew what actions to take in an emergency. Staff demonstrated a sound awareness of infection control procedures.
There was enough staff deployed. All the required checks were done before new staff started work and this helped protect people. The service is currently using agency staff, but the service has requested the staff be provided to ensure continuity for the people using the service.
Medicines were managed safely and staff had good knowledge of the medicine systems and procedures in place to support this. The support people received with their medicines was person centred and responsive to their needs.
People were provided with care and support by staff who were trained. Staff told us they had received induction and training relevant to their roles. This was followed up by competency checks. Staff received regular supervision.
People were supported with their health care needs. We saw a range of health care professionals visited the service when required and people were supported to attend health care appointments in the community.
People were supported to access activities both within the home and in the wider community. This was person centred.
People's nutrition and hydration needs were well catered for. People received a range of food which met their individual needs. Nutritional risks were well managed by the service.
Staff were spoken of highly, people who told us they were caring, kind, compassionate and respected their dignity and privacy.
People's needs were assessed prior to commencement of the service and family were involved in the review of their care. Personalised care plans were in place and these were regularly updated or when care and support needs changed.
The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people lacked capacity, best interest processes were followed. People were given choices and involved in decision making to the maximum extent possible.
A complaints procedure was in place which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received.
There was an open and transparent culture at Bradford Supported Living. People respected the management team and found them approachable. Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and their views were listened to through supervision and team meetings.
People using the service, relatives and staff we spoke with were positive about the management team. Staff said the manager was approachable and supportive.
The services were clean and infection control measures were in place. The service had quality assurance processes in place.