We carried out a review of the data available to us about Creative Support - Sutherland Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Creative Support - Sutherland Court, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures.
¿ Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work and there was enough staff available to meet people’s care and support needs.
¿ Risks to people had been assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure their needs were safely met.
¿ People were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.
¿ The provider had procedures in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infections.
¿ Assessments of people’s care and support needs were carried out before they moved into the service.
¿ Staff had received training and support relevant to people’s needs.
¿ People were supported to maintain a balanced diet.
¿ 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 support this practice.
¿ Staff treated people in a caring and respectful manner.
¿ People had been consulted about their care and support needs.
¿ People were supported to participate in activities that met their needs.
¿ No one currently using the service required support with end of life care, however there were procedures in place to make sure people had access to this type of care if it was required.
¿ The provider had a complaints procedure in place. People told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service.
¿ The manager had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.
¿ The service worked in partnership with health and social care providers to plan and deliver an effective service.
¿ The provider took people’s views into account through satisfaction surveys and meetings. Feedback from the surveys and meetings was used to improve on the service.
¿ Staff enjoyed working at the service and said they received good support from the registered manager and the management team. Management support was always available for staff when they needed it.
At our last inspection of the service 23 and 24 January 2018 we found improvements were required in relation to medicines records, staffing numbers, people’s care records were not always up to date and the provider’s checks and audits were not always consistently effective in identifying issues and driving improvements.
At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in these areas. The provider had taken steps to make sure medicines records were completed correctly, staffing numbers were meeting people’s needs, people’s care records were up to date and reflective of their needs and the provider’s checks and audits were effective in identifying issues and driving improvements.
Rating at last inspection: Requires Improvement (Report was published on 14 March 2018).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
People using the service live in 50 one or two bedroom apartments located in a single apartment block within the London Borough of Bromley. Not everyone using the service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
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 found areas requiring improvement because Medicine Administration Records (MARs) had not always been correctly completed by staff and did not demonstrate that people had received their medicines at appropriate intervals. Staffing levels did not always meet the planned allocation on each shift. People’s care records were not always up to date and accurate. The provider conducted checks and audits in a range of areas but these were not always consistently effective in identifying issues and driving improvements.
People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the different types and signs of abuse, and the action to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. Staff also knew to report any accidents and incidents, and records showed that senior staff reviewed incident records and acted to reduce the risk of repeat occurrence to keep people safe. The provider followed safe recruitment practices. The provider had systems in place to protect people from the risk of infection.
Staff sought consent from people when offering them support and demonstrated an understanding of how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) applied to their roles. 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.
Staff were supported in their roles through regular supervision, appraisal, and the provider’s training programme which was due for completion in April 2018. People were supported to access healthcare services where required and to maintain a balanced diet where this was a part of their assessed needs. The provider worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent, joined up care and support.
People’s needs were holistically assessed to support staff in developing care plans which reflected their preferences and choices in the way they received support. Staff treated people with care and consideration, and encouraged their independence. People told us that they were treated with dignity and that their privacy was respected. They were also involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service offered a range of activities for people to take part in, in support of their need for social engagement.
The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people told us they knew how to raise concerns if needed. Records showed that senior staff had followed the provider’s complaints procedure in investigating and responding to any complaints they had received.