We carried out a review of the data available to us about Embark Head Office 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 Embark Head Office, you can give feedback on this service.
Embark Head Office provides care and support to people living in two ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.
At the last inspection on 25 and 26 November 2015, the service was rated as good in the areas of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Staff had a good understanding of systems in place to manage medicines. People were supported to receive their medicines safely. Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people's wellbeing and safety was protected. A robust recruitment and selection process was also in place. This ensured prospective new staff have the right skills and were suitable to work with people living in the home.
People and relatives were provided with information and guidance to access other services which were relevant to them for any on-going support they may need. Staff considered peoples capacity using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as guidance. People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed. 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 continued to receive regular training and updates to have the right skills and knowledge to be able to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff had regular spot checks, supervisions and appraisals to help them to understand their roles and responsibilities.
Staff remained kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people. Relatives told us their loved ones were comfortable in the presence of staff. Relatives confirmed staff were caring and looked after people well. People were provided with the care, support and equipment they needed to stay independent in their homes.
People’s individual needs continued to be assessed and detailed care plans were developed to identify what care and support they required. People and relatives were consulted about their care to ensure wishes, aspiration, needs and preferences were met.
Quality assurance and information governance systems remained in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Relatives all told us that they were happy with the service provided and the way it was managed.
We inspected Embark Head Office on 25 & 26 November 2015. The service provided supported living to people living inBurgess Hill and Haywards Heath. The service supported seven people at the time of our inspection. The service provided 24 hour support for adults with a learning disability. The Care Quality Commission inspects the care and support the service provides, but does not inspect the accommodation people live in.
This inspection was announced which meant people, the registered manager and staff knew we were coming shortly before we visited the service.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.
People told us they felt safe and were happy living there. One person told us, “I feel safe and calm here. I can chill out. The staff help me to chill out.” We saw people were aided by staff who knew them well, gave them individual support and looked at providing additional assistance as and when required.
The service had safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place. This helped protect people from the likelihood of abuse or neglect. Recruitment procedures were robust and only suitably vetted staff were employed to work in the service.
People and their relatives spoke positively of the service. They were complimentary about the caring, positive nature of the staff. We were told, “Staff are nice and friendly.” Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and their individual preferences.
Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.
Staff and the registered manager were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They were aware this legislation protected the rights of people who lacked capacity to make decisions about their care and welfare.
Staff received training to support them with their role on a continuous basis to ensure they could meet people’s needs effectively.
The staff team were responsive to people’s social needs and supported people to maintain and foster interests and relationships that were important to them. People were central to the practices involved in the planning and reviews of their support.
People told us they were well supported to maintain their independence and their life skills with the support from staff. One person said, “I do the washing up. Tuesday is my day for my room clean. I can’t yet do my bed on my own but I have my rota and staff to help me finish it off .I’ve done my Christmas shopping already.”
People received regular assessments of their needs and any identified risks. Records were maintained in relation to people’s healthcare, for example when people were supported with making or attending GP appointments.
The registered manager undertook quality assurance reviews to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.
People were encouraged to express their views. People also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. One person said, “The staff know me well. I like them. I also like the boss [named]. They have to do paperwork just like you’re doing now.”
Staff were asked for their opinions on the service and whether they were happy in their work. Staff enjoyed their work. They felt supported within their roles and described a caring management approach. They described how management were always available to discuss suggestions and address problems or concerns.
We took information from other sources to help us understand the views of people who used the service, including meeting minutes. We conducted a review of relevant documentation.
The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the support they received and with the staff. A person who used the service told us "I like living here. I'm happy here I like my room and all the staff". Those supporting the young people, including managers and staff, had a good understanding of the support needs of the people who used the service. A support worker told us "It's the most rewarding work I've ever done. I'm happy with the support we provide".
We saw that the service had systems in place to gain and review consent to care and treatment from people who used the service.
The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that is suitably designed and adequately maintained.
We looked at staffing rotas and during our visit observed levels of staffing. We saw that the service had sufficient numbers of staff to support people. We also saw that care plans and staff records were relevant to the management of the home were accurate and fit for purpose.
People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans contained detailed guidance for care workers as to how the care should be provided. Care and support plans we saw were clearly based on the preferences of the young adult.
Relatives of the young adults spoke highly of the care delivered and the care workers.
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.
Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. Criminal Record Bureaux Checks (CRB) had been completed as part of the recruitment process. Care workers had relevant experience and qualifications. One care worker told us;
"It is a lovely place to work', 'the ethos is brilliant' and 'it's all about putting the young person at the centre of what we do and promoting independence."
People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.