You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The inspection took place on 3 July and was announced. The inspection continued on 5 July and was again announced.

Community Wessex - East delivers domiciliary personal care to people with learning disabilities, and autism. Personal care was provided to 30 people who lived in their own homes. There was a central office base which had a reception area, four offices and a training room.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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’s review meetings and quality monitoring systems were not set up to capture people’s feedback, views and opinions based on their progress in achieving goals and experience of the quality of care they received. We were told that these systems would be reviewed to capture actions, outcomes and feedback.

Medicines were managed safely, in people’s homes, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines. Medicine Administration Records reviewed showed no gaps. However, we found that medicine cabinets were not secured to the walls. This was rectified on day two of our inspection.

Relatives, health and social care professionals and staff told us that the service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received safeguarding training.

Personalised care plans were in place which detailed the care and support people needed to remain safe whilst having control and making choices about how they chose to live their lives. Each person had a care file which also included outcomes and guidelines to make sure staff supported people in a way they preferred. Risk assessments were completed, regularly reviewed and up to date.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s support needs and received regular mandatory training as well as training specific to their roles for example, autism and epilepsy.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and training records showed that they had received training in this. People’s records contained assessments of their capacity. Where decisions had been made in people’s best interests around their care and treatment these were being recorded fully. This made sure that any decisions made were in people’s best interests and were least restrictive as possible.

Staff told us they received regular supervisions which were carried out by management. We reviewed records which confirmed this. A staff member told us, “I receive regular supervisions and find them useful”.

People were supported with shopping, cooking and preparation of meals in their home. Menus were created based on people’s likes and reflected a good variety of meals to maintain healthy diets.

People were supported to access healthcare appointments as and when required and staff followed GP and community nurses’ advice when supporting people with ongoing care needs.

Relatives and health and social care professionals told us that staff were caring. During home visits we observed positive interactions between staff and people. This showed us that people felt comfortable with staff supporting them.

Staff treated people in a dignified manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes, interests and communication needs. Information was available in various easy read and pictorial formats. This meant that people were supported by staff who knew them well.

People had their care and support needs assessed before using the service and care packages reflected needs identified in these. We saw that plans were regularly reviewed by the service with people (where possible), families and health professionals when available.

People, staff and relatives were encouraged to fe

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The service was mostly safe. Medicines were managed safely, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s assessed care and support needs.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because staff had completed safeguarding adults training and were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because risk assessments were in place, reviewed and up to date.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The service was effective.

People’s choices were respected and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s capacity was assessed and best interest decisions recorded.

Staff received training, supervision and appraisals to give them the skills and support to carry out their roles.

Staff supported people to maintain healthy balanced diets and dietary needs were assessed where appropriate.

People were supported to access health care services and local learning disability teams.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The service was caring. People were supported by staff that spent time with and knew them well.

People were supported by staff that used person centred approaches to deliver the care and support they provide.

Staff had a good understanding of the people they cared for and supported them in decisions about how they liked to live their lives.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The service was responsive. Care file’s, guidelines and risk assessments were up to date and regularly reviewed. However, people’s feedback was not always recorded.

People were supported by staff that recognised and responded to their changing needs.

People were supported to access the community and take part in activities which were linked with their own interests and hobbies.

A complaints procedure was in place which included an accessible easy read version.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The service was mainly well led. Regular quality audits and service checks were carried out to make sure the service was safe. However, these did not always capture actions, learning or feedback from people.

The management all promoted and encouraged an open working environment by including people and recognising staff achievement.

The management were flexible and delivered support hours as and when necessary which in turn gained respect from people and staff.