You are here

Archived: Aspirations Southeast Adults Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

Aspirations Southeast Adults is a domiciliary care service providing 24-hour cover within supported living settings. The service supports people with learning disabilities, complex mental health problems, behavioural needs, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. At the time of the inspection there were 42 people being supported.

The service did not have a registered manager in post as the registered manager had left the service. An interim manager was supporting the service and plans were in place for one of the senior team to register as the manager.

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.

The provider’s system of audits and checks was not picking up shortfalls in staff supervision and competencies.

Staff told us that they felt supported and they could talk to the managers at any time. Records showed that staff members had supervision meetings with their line manager in which they could raise any issues they had and where their performance was discussed, although these did not occur. on a regular basis.

Care records contained detailed and personalised information around people’s care needs. This meant that staff had access to relevant and accurate information on how they should support people. It was not always clear if this information had been reviewed or whether people or their relatives had been involved in reviews.

Where staff were supporting people with complex behavioural needs risk assessments were in place, which provided staff with information around how to keep people safe. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly to ensure information remained up to date.

Staffing levels were consistent with the hours allocated to people by the local authority. Where the manager felt that people needed additional support they had referred to the local authority for a review. Accidents and incidents were monitored and appropriate action had been taken to ensure people's safety was maintained. These actions included referrals to health professionals and the local authority for support.

Recruitment processes were robust and helped to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. New staff had completed an induction, which included a period of shadowing experienced members of staff, and completing training in core subjects such as moving and handling, safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were kind and caring towards people. They had a good knowledge of people's needs and how they liked to be supported. People's family members commented positively on the support their relatives received from staff.

The registered provider had a complaints policy in place. People's relatives told us that they would feel confident making a complaint if they needed to.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

The service was safe.

Risk assessments, which were in place clearly outlined how staff were to support people safely.

The correct numbers of staff were in place to safely meet people's needs.

Staff knew how to identify and report safeguarding concerns. The registered provider had a whistleblowing policy in place which staff were aware of.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff offered people choice and control over their day-to-day care. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood their role and responsibilities in relation to this.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals to ensure their health and wellbeing was maintained.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

The service was caring.

Good relationships had developed between people and staff and staff had a good knowledge of people's support needs.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Family members spoke positively about staff interactions with their relatives.

People were supported to communicate effectively.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People were protected from the risk of social isolation. Staff supported people to access the community and to engage in activities of their choosing.

Staff knew how to put their learning into practice in order to support people and were responsive to their changing needs.

Systems were in place to resolve any concerns people had to their satisfaction.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

The home did not have a registered manager in post however the provider had plans in place to address this.

Regular checks on the quality of the service had not identified shortfalls in supervision and competency checks.

People were supported and cared for by staff who felt supported by approachable managers.