Archived: iMAP Centre

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with representatives of people who used the service and staff and from looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

Representatives told us they felt people who used the service were safe and their rights and dignity were respected.

People's care records were accurate to ensure that they received appropriate care.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents.

Staff knew about risk management plans and gave us examples of how they had followed them.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough.

Is the service effective?

There were systems in place for seeking and obtaining valid consent to care and people's human rights were respected.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way. Comments included: "They are contributing greatly to my (relative's) rehabilitation" and "They're doing a brilliant job. They've really made a difference".

There was investment in staff training and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

Is the service caring?

Feedback from people was positive, for example; "The staff are kind, experienced and fantastically reliable". "Staff have a good understanding and experience of caring for people with learning disabilities and mental health needs".

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. Feedback included: "Imap work in partnership with us to provide a bespoke service".

There was a complaints procedure in place.

Is the service well-led?

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and said they felt well supported.

Our observations indicated that the people who used the service were relaxed and happy with the staff who supported them. The staff interacted with the people who used the service in a manner that promoted their dignity. We saw that the staff knew the needs of the people who used the service and how they communicated them.

Relatives spoken with said they were happy with the service provided. They described the staff as caring and attentive. They said that they were kept informed about their relatives well-being and were consulted about care planning. Some comments made were:- 'The staff do a good job. They are very caring. My relative seems content.' 'We are happy with the service. My relative is making good progress.'

We found that care plans provided clear guidance to staff around the support people needed.

Staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported to ensure they were able to meet people's needs.

We found quality assurance systems were in place at the service to ensure people received safe, appropriate care, treatment and support.

We asked Cheshire West and Chester Council for information about how the service operated. No information of concern was reported.