You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

Headway Suffolk provides care and support to people living in a supported living setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing is provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

This announced inspection was started on 14 June 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection site visit because some of the people using it could not consent to a home visit from an inspector, which meant that we had to enable the service time to arrange for a ‘best interests’ decision about us visiting or meeting people.

On the day of our inspection, there were 20 people who had an acquired head injury being supported with personal care by the service.

Since our last inspection of this service on 15 November 2016 they have moved offices, this inspection is their first since they have moved. During that last inspection they were rated as good in all the key questions and good overall.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The service was well led; the registered manager was organised and knowledgeable about the people being supported and was well supported by the providers of the service. People, their relatives and the staff told us that the registered manager was open, supportive and had good management skills. There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of service the providers offered people.

We saw examples of positive and caring interaction between the staff and people supported by the service, people were treated with kindness and respect. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said, respected their views and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People and their relatives told us that they were confident they were safe using this service. People were protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm and abuse by staff that were trained to recognise abusive situations and knew how to report any incidents they witnessed or suspected. Staff clearly understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and there were arrangements in place for reviewing and investigating incidents when things went wrong. Staff told us they would not hesitate to report any suspicions they had about people being abused.

Staff had been safely recruited which helped protect people from harm.

Risks were assessed and steps had been put in place to safeguard people from harm without restricting their independence unnecessarily. Risks to individual people had been identified and action had been taken to protect them from harm.

Staffing levels were at a level sufficient to keep people safe and people were supported to manage their medicines in a way that ensured that they received them safely and at the right time. There were also appropriate infection control practices in place.

People’s needs assessments were detailed and they received effective care in line with current legislation from staff who had the knowledge, qualifications, skills and experience they needed to carry out their roles.

The management and staff were a strong team and worked well together to ensure that people received consistent person centred care when they used or were supported by different services. People were asked for their consent by staff before they supported them in line with legislation and guidance.

Caring and supportive staff offered advice to people to help them make healthy decisions around food and supported them to eat and drink enough t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to minimise risks to people and to keep them safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks were robust and contributed to protecting people from staff not suitable to work in care

People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s needs effectively.

The service worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services, which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with a great deal of respect and their privacy, independence and dignity was promoted and respected.

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

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People were provided with personalised care to meet their assessed needs and preferences.

Investigations were carried out to address people’s concerns and complaints; they were responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was well-led.

The service provided an open culture. People were asked for their views about the service and their comments were listened to and acted upon.

Good quality assurance systems were in place that identified shortfalls, which were addressed. As a result, the quality of the service was continually improving. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.