Archived: United Response - Central Area DCA

United Response DCA- Central provides care and support to people who live in their own homes and also to people who live in shared accommodation known as supportive living. The level and amount of support people need is determined by their own personal needs. We only inspected parts of the service which supported people with the regulated activity of personal care. At the time of our inspection there were only nine people receiving support with their personal care.

A registered manager was in place as required by their conditions of registration. 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 and associated regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was supported by six team managers who managed services in six different geographical areas across four counties.

Most people were unable to express their views about the service they received due to their complex needs. However, their relatives were very positive about the service and highly praised the staff.

Staff had been trained to support people with arrange of diverse needs. They told us they felt supported by senior staff but regular formal meetings with their line manager were not always consistent.

People received care and support which had been focused on their individual needs. Suitable staffing levels were in place so people could be adequately supported at home and in the community. Staff were knowledgeable about supporting people with complex needs or behaviours that may be seen as challenging by others. Where people’s physical and emotional needs had changed, they had been referred to health care professionals for additional advice and support. Staff had reflected and learnt from any incidents where people or staff could have been potentially harmed.

People’s support plans gave staff detailed guidance on how people like to be supported and their preferred standards of care. They were encouraged to try out new activities. People had been supported to maintain links with their families but also to become as independent as possible.

The management and administration of their medicines was based on people’s individual support needs and local pharmaceutical systems. People were encouraged to make their own decisions about their meals but were also encouraged to eat a healthy diet.

The service was well led. There was a strong management team who had a good understanding of needs of people. People and their relatives knew where to make a complaint if they had any concerns. The provider and registered manager sought and valued people’s opinions about the service they received. A new system to monitor the quality of the service being provided had been implemented.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We spoke with six family members and staff to gauge views about the service. Without exception, families were very happy with the service provided to their relative.

Is the service safe?

People were safe because risks were assessed and managed effectively. Risk assessments had been carried out and we saw that these were reviewed and updated to ensure that risks were managed. The policies and procedures to safeguard people from abuse were robust and the provider followed local and national reporting requirements.

Is the service effective?

The service people received was effective because their individual needs, choices and preferences were reflected in their care plans. Staff worked with others, including health professionals to ensure that people's health, both physical and psychological and welfare needs were met. We saw evidence that people were supported to attend medical and dental appointments.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring because people's representatives told us they felt able to express their views and that they were listened to. They described the relationships between staff and people positively. People's care plans identified their likes, dislikes, routines and preferred methods of communication. This demonstrated that the service was caring because people using the service and their families were encouraged to express their views about the service they wanted.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive because when changes occurred, appropriate actions were taken. Relatives told us that, when they had occasion to comment on an area of practice, the agency responded in a timely and professional way. This meant that people and their relatives could feel confident to raise issues and that action would be taken as necessary. They further described the service as responsive, "I know that if I have an issue, it will be dealt with promptly by the management" and "The staff work well, they take the time to know his/her likes and dislikes".

Is the service well- led?

The service was well-led because effective quality assurance systems were in place and records showed us that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They felt well supported and were confident that, if they raised any issues or concerns, these would be managed effectively. Relatives, representing people who used the service, told us they met with staff regularly. They said that "issues are dealt with quickly and satisfactorily".

We spoke to one person who used the service and they told us 'the staff help me to do lots of things'. We saw other comments from relatives such as "We are very involved in our daughter's care planning", and "we are always kept up to date by the staff".