You are here

SCASS Ltd Good Also known as Blossom House

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

SCASS Ltd provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to eight people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Primarily a respite service providing short breaks for people who live with their families or other unpaid carers, three people were staying there when we inspected. The service is provided in a large house in Forest Gate in the London Borough of Newham, which is co-located with a day support service provided by the same provider. The ground floor of the service premises has been adapted for use by people who use wheelchairs or have other mobility limitations. The service supports people who live in the boroughs of Camden, Newham and Redbridge but is available to all.

This unannounced inspection took place on 29 December 2016. The provider met all legal requirements we checked at our last inspection in September 2013.

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.

The service had a very homely and welcoming feel, and staff knew people and their support needs very well. People had care plans to which they were encouraged to contribute, and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and what this meant for the people who used the service.

Staff were aware of their roles and the leadership of the service was clear in its vision, values and aims. Staff supported people to undertake a wide range of activities and there were always enough staff, who had been properly vetted before they started work, to ensure people could undertake the activities of their choice.

People were supported to eat nutritious foods and access health care services when required.

Staff kept people safe and the service had a robust system of risk assessments and strategies in place to support people safely. People with specific medical conditions had plans and guidelines in place to address these.

Staff supported people with complex communication needs to communicate effectively.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely and in a timely manner, and the provider had a robust safer recruitment system in place.

Risks were assessed and strategies were in place to mitigate those risks. People were safeguarded from abuse.

Medicines were managed safely within the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and support to carry out their roles.

Consent to care was sought in line with legal requirements and the staff knew what to do if a person did not have capacity to make decisions about their support.

Food and drink provided was nutritious and appetising, and staff supported people to access healthcare services when necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was caring.

Staff knew people very well and the atmosphere in the service was relaxed and comfortable.

Staff supported people to communicate effectively using pictorial aids when required.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed each time they used the service for a short break and their care plan revised to ensure staff were aware.

Staff supported people to undertake the activities of their choice.

There was a system in place for receiving and responding to complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was well-led.

The leadership of the service was open and transparent, and staff were aware of their roles. The service’s vision, values and aims were clear and evident in the work of the staff.

The registered manager had a system in place to check the quality of the service.

The service had been recognised for its work by outside agencies and had won an award in each of the last two years.