Background to this inspection
Updated
21 February 2019
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place on 15 January 2019 and 20 January 2019 and was announced. The provider was given notice because the location provides care to people in their own homes; we needed to be sure that someone was available in the office and that time could be given for arrangements to be made so we could talk with people
We visited an office location on 15 January 2019 to see the registered manager and reviewed the service’s systems and records. We made announced visits to two supported living schemes run by the agency to speak with people and the staff who supported them. On day two of the inspection we made telephone calls to some relatives and staff.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Before the inspection we reviewed information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales.
During the inspection we carried out general observations.
As part of the inspection we spoke with two people who were supported by Ansar, two community support leaders, four support workers and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and checked to see how the schemes were managed. We looked at care plans for three people, the recruitment records for three staff, staffing rosters, one medicines record, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service and the quality assurance audits that were completed. After the site visit we made telephone calls to six support staff and four relatives.
Updated
21 February 2019
This was an announced inspection carried out on 15 January and 20 January 2019. 13 people were using the service at the time of our inspection.
This was the first rated inspection of the service since it was registered.
Ansar Project is registered to provide personal care to adults with an autism spectrum disorder or related conditions. People are supported by staff to live individually in their own homes.
The service provides care and support to people with an autism spectrum disorder in 10 supported living settings, so that they can live in their own home 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.
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.
A registered manager was in place. 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.
Most people who used the agency had complex needs and they did not express their views about the service. During the time we spent with people we saw they appeared comfortable with staff. Relatives told us they felt people were safe and staff were kind.
There were sufficient staff employed and people received a reliable and consistent service. Staff were well-supported due to regular supervision, annual appraisals and a robust induction programme, which developed their understanding of people and their routines. Staff also received a range of specialised training to ensure they could support people safely and carry out their roles effectively.
Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. Staff had developed good relationships with people, were caring in their approach and treated people with respect. Care was provided with patience and kindness. Staff upheld people's human rights and treated everyone with respect and dignity.
People were supported to access health care professionals when required. They received varied and nutritious diets with involvement from other professionals to obtain advice for any specialist needs. People were supported to receive their medicines safely. They were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and to be part of the local community.
Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interests decision making approaches, when people were unable to make decisions themselves.
People were involved in decisions about their care. They 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. Information was made available in a format that helped people to understand if they did not read.
Staff were well supported by the registered manager and management team. The registered manager had a clear vision for the service and its development. They were enthusiastic and believed strongly in the ethos.
People, relatives and staff had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with people, relatives and staff and their views were used to improve the service. A complaints procedure was in place if people or their relatives needed to raise a complaint. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.