You are here

The Robert Atkinson Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

This inspection took place on 10 December 2018 and was announced. This was an announced inspection to ensure there would be somebody available in the office and so that people could be informed that we wished to contact them for their views.

This was the first time the service had been inspected.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to a wide range of individuals including older people and younger adults. At the time of our inspection nine people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.’

People were cared for safely by staff who understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to raise any concerns. Individual risks were assessed and plans put in place to minimise them. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to reduce future risk.

The service had only just taken on a package that included the administration of medicine. Procedures and paperwork was in place ready to support the person with their medicines. Staff had been trained in the safe administration of medicines and knew how to ensure they were stored safely.

Staff had access to a wide range of training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to support people effectively. Specialist training was available to help staff meet the specific needs of the people they supported. People were supported to access healthcare and encouraged to have a healthy diet appropriate to their needs.

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 were passionate about their work and promoted dignity and independence. People who used the service and their relatives were all very happy with the support they received and told us staff were friendly.

Support plans contained very detailed information about people, their likes and dislikes and how best to meet their needs. People were engaged in a variety of activities and supported to access the community they lived in. There was a procedure in place to deal with complaints although none had been received at the time of our inspection.

The service was led by a management team who supported staff well. Feedback was sought from people using the service and staff. A comprehensive system of audits was in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was safe.

Staff had a knowledge and understanding of safeguarding and how to report concerns.

Risk assessments were in place for individuals and their environment.

There was a system in place to monitor accidents and incidents and a contingency plan to deal with emergency situations.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was effective.

Staff had received the necessary training to provide a good standard of care to people.

Staff were supported by regular supervision meetings and an open door policy meant they could speak with the management team at any time between these meetings.

People�s needs were appropriately assessed before staff began delivering care and they were asked for their consent prior to delivery of care.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was caring.

Care was delivered in a way that respected people�s privacy and dignity.

People were supported in a way that was sensitive to their religious and cultural needs.

Advocacy services were available should people need to access them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was responsive.

Care plans contained detailed information on people�s likes and dislikes and life history.

A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to raise concerns if they needed to. No complaints had been received at the time of the inspection.

People were encouraged to join activities at the provider�s day centre to avoid social isolation and enhance their quality of life.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 January 2019

The service was well-led.

A comprehensive system of audits was in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Feedback was regularly sought from people who used the service and staff.

Staff meetings were taking place every month and staff felt well supported.