The Good Days Project

The Good Days Project is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to adults with a learning disability, physical disability and people living with autism in their own homes and in the community. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to 21 people. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. There were three people being supported with their personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

Relatives spoken with did not express any concerns about the safety of their family member. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people. Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learnt from events such as incidents, concerns and investigations.

The provider completed pre-employment checks for new staff, to check they were suitable to work at the service. There were enough staff employed at the service so people experienced continuity of care. They were supported by a core group of staff who knew them well.

Medicines were managed safely at the service.

Relatives spoken with were satisfied with the quality care provided by the service to their family member. They said they would recommend the service for people with complex physical needs and/or learning disabilities.

Staff received a range of training and support relevant to their role. Staff told us they felt fully supported and listened to. Relatives were confident support workers had received appropriate training to meet their needs.

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 understood the importance of respecting people’s diverse needs and promoting independence.

Relatives told us staff were respectful and treated their family member in a caring and supportive way.

There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. It was clear from our discussions with staff that they enjoyed caring for people living at the service and they found it rewarding.

At our last inspection, we found people’s care records needed updating to reflect their current care and support needs. At this inspection we found action had been taken to update people’s care and support records.

Relatives felt confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager and those concerns would be taken seriously. There was a robust complaints system in place.

People using the service was supported to maintain their independence and engage in activities within the community.

At our last inspection, we saw the systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service needed to be formalised and embedded to evidence continuous improvement. At this inspection we found the quality assurance systems had been improved.

Rating at last inspection:

At our last inspection Good Days Project was rated requires improvement (report 11 October 2018 published). At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the overall rating of the service had improved to good.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the 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.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The Good Days Project is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to adults with a learning disability, physical disability and people living with autism in their own homes and in the community.

Not everyone using The Good days Project 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 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.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy

There was a newly appointed manager at the service on the day of the inspection. They were in the process of registration with CQC. 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.

Everyone being supported had a care record. Staff could explain people’s current needs. However, the provider was in the process of transferring the care records onto a new system. This made it difficult to navigate some of the care records we looked at, and therefore it was likely a new member of staff may also struggle to easily find the most recent information relevant to the person's current care and support needs. However it was clear from conversations with staff that they knew people well and how they supported them.

We have made a recommendation that the provider transfer the care plans to the new system and archive any old information as soon as possible to make sure that staff have access to up to date and accurate information and to make sure they can easily access information in the event of an emergency.

People received a safe service because risks to their health and safety were being well managed. We looked at the care records for the people who used the service and these included risk assessments and support plans about keeping the person safe and covered all aspects of daily living. This promoted the person’s independence and ensured their rights to freedom were respected. The risk assessments had been kept under review. The plans detailed the support the person required to maximise their independence and choice, including the management of behaviour that might challenge the service.

People we spoke with told us they felt “safe” and had no worries or concerns. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported and felt confident the registered manager would act on their concerns. We found there were satisfactory arrangements in place to safeguard people who had monies managed by the service.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place so people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people. The provider had a number of job vacancies which they were trying to recruit to. This meant the manager was often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. This meant they had to divide their time between providing direct support and managing the service.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines. Systems were in place to monitor accidents and incidents however the registered provider was in the process of implementing a system to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations.

There were effective infection control measures in place. Staff had access to gloves and aprons and we saw these were readily accessible throughout the service.

In people’s records we found evidence of involvement from other professionals such as doctors, optician, tissue viability nurses and speech and language practitioners.

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 were supported with their health and dietary needs, where this was part of their plan of care.

Staff underwent an induction and shadowing period prior to commencing work, and had regular updates to their training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff were well supported and received supervisions and appraisals regularly.

Staff spoken with could describe people’s individual needs, hobbies and interests, life history, people’s likes and dislikes. Staff enjoyed working at the service. Staff could describe how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity and could describe how people made choices for themselves.

The service was following the Accessible Information standard (AI). The service provided information to people using the service in an easy read format to meet their needs.

The provider had a complaint’s process in place. People and relatives told us that concerns and complaints were always taken seriously, explored thoroughly and responded to in good time.

People knew who the manager was and knew they could ask to speak with them if they had any concerns. The provider had plans to improve the delivery of the service but further systems needed to be formalised and embedded to evidence continuous improvement of the service provided.

Accidents and untoward incidents were monitored by the provider and the provider.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to inform the CQC about notifiable incidents and circumstances in line with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.