You are here

Mencap - West Suffolk Domiciliary Care Agency Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

This was the first inspection of the service at this location.

The inspection took place 28 March, 4 April and 9 April 2018 and was announced. The service supports people with a learning disability and is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes flats and supported living services in the community.

On the first day of our visit fifty-two people were supported by the service.

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.”

A registered manager was in place and was based at the service central office. They visited people and staff regularly and did provide support themselves on planned occasions. 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 registered manager was innovative and passionate about providing good quality support to the people using the service. They were aware in order to achieve this they needed to provide staff with on-going training and support. They also needed to ensure there was a quality loop which gathered information from all people involved with the service. This information was then analysed and used to plan and make improvements to the service.

The senior staff listened to the views of people using the service also other professionals to ensure they followed current best practice. This determined high standards of support were consistently provided and maintained for people.

The service encouraged people to provide feedback on how things were managed and to share their experiences of the service. People were very positive about the support they received from staff who knew them well.

The senior team under the direction of the registered manager utilised a range of management tools to deliver person-centred care. They showed that to provide support they valued the staff and promoted their learning, development and well-being. There was an open culture at the service where staff felt supported and able to make suggestions for improvements. We found that the staff were motivated to work with and provide personalised support to people at the service.

People looked at ease with staff and told us that the staff were kind. People using the service were able to talk with us about their experiences of the service which were positive.

Each person had a support plan and a risk assessment which identified actions which should be taken to minimise the risk. There was a robust recruitment process and staff received an Induction, supervision and on-going training. Medicines were safely stored and administered as prescribed.

Staff were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse, and the actions that they would take should they have any concerns.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Support plans were in place for each person. The information provided staff with the information they needed to support people. People’s preferences and choices had been identified in their support plan. People choose the food and drinks they consumed.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place. Relatives informed us they were confident any c

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected as far as reasonably possible by staff who had received training to recognise abuse and how to report the matter.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep them as safe as possible.

There were appropriate systems in place for handling and administering medicines.

There were robust recruitment practices in place to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by motivated staff. The induction for new staff was robust and all staff received regular and effective supervision and support.

People’s rights were protected. Staff and management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest meetings.

People were supported to maintain good health and an appropriate diet for their needs.

The service worked with other professionals as required to support people to meet their needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect by staff who were kind and compassionate.

The service had a confidentiality policy and staff received training to help them provide dignified care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff knew people well because they were organised to work with a small number of people using the service.

Any issues, complaints or ideas for improvement were listened to and addressed promptly.

The service had supported people to re-engage with their local community

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was well led.

The manager set the example of how the service was to perform and was approachable to people using the service and staff.

The service had clear values which were put into practice by organised and caring staff.

There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

The service had built links within the local community.