You are here

YourLife (Sidcup) Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 24 October 2018

This inspection took place on 13 September 2018 and was announced. This is the first inspection for this service which was registered in September 2017.

YourLife (Sidcup) provides personal care to older people in their own homes within an assisted living development. Not everyone using YourLife (Sidcup) received 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. At the time of the inspection there were four people using the service.

The service has recently employed a manager who is not yet registered with the CQC, but who had applied to become the registered 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.

At this inspection, we observed that medicines were not always managed safely. Risk assessments for falls were not carried out and there were no risk management plans in place for people at risk of falls. Accidents and incidents were not always appropriately managed. Care plans were not always updated following a change in people’s care or support needs. The provider did not have effective processes in place to monitor the quality of the service as they had not identified the issues we found at this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.”

There were appropriate safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew to who contact to report their concerns. People were protected from the risk of infection. Staff were able to confidently describe what they did to prevent the risk of infection. There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs and the provider followed safe recruitment practices.

Staff completed an induction when they started work and a programme of regular training and supervision to enable them to effectively carry out their roles. People's needs were assessed prior to joining the service to ensure their needs could be met. 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 told us they asked for people’s consent before offering support. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and had access to healthcare professionals when required to maintain good health.

Staff were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were involved in making decisions about their daily care and support needs. People were supported to be independent wherever possible. People were provided with information about the service when they joined in the form of a 'service user guide' so they were aware of the services and facilities on offer.

People were involved in planning their care needs. People were aware of the service’s complaints procedures and knew how to make a complaint if necessary. People's religious beliefs were recorded and the manager told us they would be supported to meet their individual needs if required. The service was not currently supporting people who were considered end of life. However, if there were we were told this would be recorded in their care plans.

The provider carried out spot and competency checks to make sure people were being supported in line with their care plans. Regular staff meetings were held where feedback was sought from people about the service. Staff were complimentary about the manager and the service. The manager was knowledgeable about the requirements of a registered manager a

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Medicines were not always managed safely.

Risks to people were not always identified and safely managed.

Accidents and incidents were not always appropriately managed.

There were appropriate adult safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

People were protected from risk of infection.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs in a timely manner and the provider followed safe recruitment practices.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was effective.

People's needs were assessed prior to joining the service to ensure their needs could be met.

Staff completed an induction when they started work and were supported through regular training and supervisions and appraisals

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and supported people to make decisions appropriately. Staff told us they asked for people's consent before offering support.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People had access to healthcare professionals when required, to maintain good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was caring.

People were involved in making decisions about their daily care and support needs.

People told us staff were caring and respected their privacy, dignity and independence.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training and said they would support people according to their individual diverse needs.

People were provided with information about the service when they joined in the form of a 'service user guide' so they were aware of the services and facilities on offer.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

Care plans were not always updated following a change in people’s care or support needs.

People and their relatives were involved in planning their care and support needs.

People were aware of the service’s complaints procedures and knew how to raise a complaint.

If people required advanced care plans to document their end of life care wishes, this would be recorded in their care plans.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

The provider did not have effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

There was a manager in post who had applied to be the registered manager.

Regular staff meetings were held and regular feedback was sought from people about the service.

Staff were complimentary about the manager and the service.

The provider worked in partnership with the housing to provider people with a high-quality service to meet people needs effectively.