St Anne's Community Services - Sunderland

This inspection took place over two days, 13 and 14 January 2015. The provider was given one days notice of our visit.

The last inspection of the service was carried out on 2 August 2013. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

St Anne’s Community Care – Sunderland provided personal care, which is a regulated activity, to six people who lived in three separate tenancies. The tenancies were managed by a separate organisation. The amount of personal care provided by St Anne’s Community Care – Sunderland, varied according to the individual needs of each person. For instance, some people received around 20 hours support each week, while others needed up to 112 hours. Each person had learning disabilities. Some people used non-verbal communication methods to tell us their views.

The service had a 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.

People told us or communicated that they felt safe. They told us the service was “perfect” and “It’s alright here.” We observed people were happy and relaxed and had good relationships with the staff caring for them. The registered manager had successfully used a number of methods to raise staff awareness about protecting people from harm. This meant staff knew how to recognise potential abuse and what to do about it. Risks to individuals and the service were identified and managed effectively so that people were kept safe, without compromising their independence.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff support was provided at the times people needed it and managed flexibly so people’s individual wishes could be accommodated. Staff had been thoroughly vetted before they were employed and effective measures were in place to cover any unexpected staff absences.

People’s medicines were managed effectively so that they received them safely. People told us they got their medicines at the right times they needed them.

The provider had ensured the staff were trained to provide the care people needed. This included basic training in the fundamentals of care, as well as more specialised training. For instance, staff had been trained to use British Sign Language as this was some people’s main method of communication. Constructive supervision and appraisal systems meant staff felt well supported to carry out their roles.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had taken action where necessary when concerns were identified about people’s capacity to make their own decisions. She had also used effective measures to help staff understand the implications of this legislation for their practice.

Staff provided the support people needed to have a balanced diet. Any risks to individuals around eating and drinking had been identified and expert advice sought when necessary. Staff were well informed about any risks to people as well as their individual preferences about food and drink.

People got the support they needed to maintain good health and obtain medical advice and routine check-ups when needed. There were effective audit systems in place to monitor people’s health and wellbeing.

Staff were kind and considerate when providing care and support to people. They supported people to express their views and were skilled at listening and communicating with people who used non-verbal means of communication. It was apparent people got on well with their care workers. They told us, “I like the workers. They help wash and cook, and they drive the car,” and “I know all the staff. I like them all.” The staff clearly understood the importance of promoting people’s privacy and dignity when they provided care to them.

Detailed support plans were in place to guide staff as to how their care should be provided. It was clear from our communication with people, that they had been involved in drawing up their plan of care. As a consequence, the support provided to people reflected their wishes and aims. This meant people got the support they needed and wanted. For instance, people were able to get out into the community and enjoy their preferred social activities or go to work. This showed the service provided the personalised care people wanted.

People understood how to make a complaint or raise any concerns about their care. The registered manager had checked to make sure people understood how to do this. Documents about making a complaint used pictorial symbols to help people understand how to make a complaint.

The registered manager provided good leadership to the staff team and managed the service well. She was well known to people who used the service, which meant they had a good relationship with her.

The provider and registered manager had promoted a positive culture, which meant both people using the service and staff had ample opportunities to discuss their views about the service. People’s views were taken into account which meant the service was provided in a flexible way to meet people’s needs and wishes. For instance, the service had reduced the number of care workers providing support to one person, which had helped reduce his anxiety.

There were effective systems in place to check on the quality of care being delivered including regular meetings with people who used the service and staff, visits by management to people and regular auditing of each aspect of people’s care. We found these methods were used to improve the quality of care people received.