You are here

Archived: SLC Signposts

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

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 October 2013
Date of Publication: 30 October 2013
Inspection Report published 30 October 2013 PDF | 79.62 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 4 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. and an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

We spent time with the acting regional manager and asked them what systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service people received.

Spot checks were carried out on staff whilst they supported people and audits were undertaken by team leaders. These audits covered subjects such as finances, medications, health and safety, activities, risk assessments, progress reports, rotas and staffing levels and were carried out on a weekly basis at each person’s home. If any issues were apparent during these audits they were addressed with the member of staff and if necessary further training was provided in any areas which needed improvement. We saw the results of these audits and actions taken when appropriate.

The regional manager told us they encouraged the people who used the service and their relatives to be vocal and asked them for feedback on a regular basis through telephone calls and surveys. We asked people we spoke with if they received regular contact from the service provider and they told us they did. People we spoke with told us they can speak to staff if there is an issue. One person said "If I am worried about anything or if I want to change anything I just ring the office". Another person said there had been an issue about communication but “I told them I wasn’t very happy and they have certainly made improvements since I mentioned it. The team leader is much better at getting in touch with me and including me in discussions about my relative’s care”.

SLC Signposts carried out an annual quality assurance questionnaire with their customers and we saw the results of the latest survey carried out in 2012. We spoke with the quality manager who explained that the answers received had been reviewed and collated and we were shown the results. Where issues were evident these had been addressed. For example, some people had felt that they were not involved in choosing the staff who looked after them. As a result of this the company introduced a document entitled “choosing my support”. This gave people who used the service the opportunity to be actively involved in choosing the people who provided their support by taking part in the interview process. This meant that SLC signposts listened to feedback and acted upon it to make changes for the better.

Care files were audited to ensure that personal details, communication plans, support plans, medications, and reviews were carried out regularly and we saw evidence of that in the files that we looked at.

There were systems in place to monitor and record incidents, investigations and complaints about the service and we were told how incidents are investigated and managed.