You are here

Bradford Supported Living Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 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 in

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was not always safe

Medicines were managed in a safe way.

Staff understood safeguarding principles and what to do if they were concerned about people.

Staffing levels were well managed which promoted people's safety and helped to ensure a good standard of support was consistently provided to people.

More detailed information was required in emergency plans so staff knew what actions they should take..

Effective

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was effective

Staff received regular training appropriate to their role. This meant they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's care and support needs.

The service was acting within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff sought people's consent prior to care and support tasks.

Staff liaised with health professionals about people's healthcare needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was caring.

People provided positive feedback about the standards of care, telling us staff treated them with dignity and respect.

People were supported and encouraged to maintain links with the community.

Staff promoted people�s privacy & dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was responsive.

Care records and people's assessed needs were regularly reviewed.

People had access to activities, which they were consulted about and involved in.

People received person centred care, which focused on their individual needs

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 April 2018

The service was well led.

Staff expressed confidence and respect about the management of the service.

Ranges of quality audits were in place to drive improvements within the service. There was a commitment to ensure continuous improvement of the service.