You are here

Carlisle Community Services Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

This inspection took place between 20 July to 3 August 2018. The inspection was announced

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered to a new provider, Richmond Fellowship, in July 2017.

This service provides care and support to people with mental health needs living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Not everyone using Carlisle Community Services received the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, such as help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. There were two people receiving personal care and support at the time of this inspection.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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 received safe care and were very comfortable with staff. Staff were trained in how to report any concerns and the organisation had clear protocols about protecting people.

There was very good continuity of care as the same small teams of staff had supported each person for many years. People received one-to-one support and staffing level matched this.

People needed help with managing their medicines and staff did this in a safe way.

Everyone supported by the service had been appropriately assessed. Staff were trained and experienced in supporting people, and keen to continue their learning.

A relative felt the service was very effective at meeting people’s needs. The service worked alongside other health and social care professionals.

Over the past year there had been few opportunities for staff to have supervision sessions with a senior member of staff. Supervisions support the professional development of staff and can also make sure people receive consistent care. Also, there had been few staff meetings so staff did not always have opportunities to review people’s care as a team. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were 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 supported this practice.

People and a relative had very good relationship with the staff as they had supported the same people for many years. A relative described staff as compassionate, caring and professional.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff respected people’s choices and decisions and supported them in a way which promoted their self-esteem and independence wherever possible.

People received a personalised service. Staff were very familiar with their individual preferences, lifestyles and needs.

Each person had person-centred care plans that described their individual needs and how they liked to be supported. These were created in an electronic format and staff reviewed them every three months. The provider needed to make sure that all staff had access to the records.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place and aimed to continuously develop its services.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was safe.

Staff levels were sufficient to meet people�s needs. There were enough staff to provide one-to-one support for each person.

People felt comfortable with their staff team and staff knew how to report any safeguarding concerns.

Risks to people�s safety were assessed and managed. People�s medicines were managed in a safe way.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was not always effective.

Staff did not always receive sufficient supervision to make sure they were supported and worked in a consistent way.

Staff were well trained and experienced in their roles. They understood people�s rights and only carried out support with people�s consent.

People�s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed with other care services.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives felt staff were caring, dedicated and supportive.

Staff understood how to assist people in a way that upheld their dignity.

People�s choices and preferences were respected, and their independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People received a personalised, tailored service based on each person�s needs.

Care records included information and guidance about people�s well-being and individual needs.

The provider had a clear complaints procedure about how to make a complaint or raise a concern.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was well led.

There a registered manager in place and new team leaders who were planning to improve the running of the service.

The provider had a thorough quality assurance system in place to identify areas for improvement and development.

The provider was part of a wider group of charitable organisations who were committed to supporting the recovery of people with mental health needs.