You are here

Archived: Sefton New Directions Limited - Home Service Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

Sefton New Directions provides three distinct services. A short term re-enablement service for people in their own homes, 'shared lives', a long-term domiciliary care service for people with learning difficulties and a supported living service for up to 15 people with learning difficulties in five tenancy locations.

This was an announced inspection which took place over three days on 28, 29 April and 6 May 2016. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

We saw that some of the medication administration records were not always clear in the supported living service so it was not clear whether people had received their medicines. There was a need to develop audits for checking medication standards to help ensure consistent safe standards were developed and maintained.

We told the provider to take action.

We were able to speak with people at the two supported living locations we visited. They looked relaxed and had an obvious positive rapport with the staff members providing support. Those able to express an opinion said they felt safe with the support they received.

We saw that people requiring support when out in the community to ensure they were safe, had fully developed plans in place. Staff were arranged to support this depending on each person’s needs. People’s support plans evidenced this.

We found staffing of the service was under regular review and there were sufficient staff available to support each of the three designated services within the Home Service.

We looked at how staff were recruited and the processes to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. We looked at two staff files and found that appropriate applications, references and security [police] checks had been carried out. These checks had been made so that staff employed were ‘fit’ to work with people who might be vulnerable.

The staff we spoke with clearly described how they recognised abuse and the action they took to ensure actual or potential harm was reported. All of the staff we spoke with were clear about the need to report through any concerns they had. There had been a number of safeguarding referrals and investigations since our last inspection of the service. Agreed protocols had been followed in terms of investigating and ensuring any lessons had been learnt and effective action had been taken. This rigour helped ensure people were kept safe and their rights upheld.

Arrangements were in place for checking the care environment to ensure it was safe. There were protocols in place so that staff in all three services monitored the living environments and reported through any issues.

We observed staff provide support and the interactions we saw showed how staff communicated and supported people as individuals. Relatives told us that staff seemed well trained and competent. Communication between relatives, people being supported, staff and senior management was effective.

Staff were supported by on-going training, supervision, appraisal and staff meetings. Formal qualifications in care were offered to staff as part of their development. We saw there were plans to further develop training particularly with respect to the share lives service.

Local health care professionals, such as the person’s GP, and Community Mental Health Team were regularly involved with people. The feedback we received from people using the services, professionals and relatives evidenced good liaison and appropriate working to ensure people received good health care support.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. When people w

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was not always safe.

We saw that some of the medication administration records were not always clear in the supported living service so it was not clear whether people had received their medicines. There was a need to develop audits for checking medication standards to help ensure consistent safe standards were developed and maintained.

There was a good level of understanding regarding how safe care was managed. Care was organised so any risks were assessed and plans put in place to maximise people’s independence whilst help ensure they were safe.

Staff understood what abuse meant and knew the correct procedure to follow if they thought someone was being abused.

There were enough staff employed to help ensure people were cared for flexibly and in a safe manner. Staff had been checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was effective.

The service worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us they were able to make their own choices and were involved in decisions about their support.

Systems were in place to provide staff support. This included on-going training, staff supervision, appraisals and staff meetings.

People’s care documents showed details about people’s medical conditions and also appointments with health care professionals such as GPs and district nurse teams to help support people in their own home, supported living or shared lives.

Staff said they were supported through induction, supervision, appraisal and the service’s training programme.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was caring.

The feedback we received from all three areas of the service evidenced a caring service. People being supported and their relatives commented positively on how the staff approached care.

We observed positive interactions between people being supported in supported living and shared lives. Carers treated people with respect and dignity. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences.

People we spoke with and relatives told us the manager’s and staff communicated with them effectively about changes to care and involved them in any plans and decisions.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s care was planned so it was personalised and reflected their current and on-going care needs.

A process for managing complaints was in place and people we spoke with and relatives were confident they could approach staff and make a complaint if they needed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was well led.

The registered manager provided an effective lead in the service and was supported by a clear management structure.

We found an open and person-centred culture. This was evidenced throughout for all of the interviews conducted through to observations of care and records reviewed.

There were systems in place to gather feedback from people so that the service was developed with respect to their needs.