You are here

Positive Community Care Recovery Services Inadequate

We are carrying out a review of quality at Positive Community Care Recovery Services. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.


Inspection carried out on 26 September 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Positive Community Care Recovery Services is a ‘supported living’ service. The service provides personal care to people with a range of needs including learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorder, physical and sensory disabilities, mental health conditions and older people who may be living with dementia.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service supported 78 people but only nine people received personal care.

The service was not fully developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service did not always receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We found the service had not always taken appropriate measures to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm. Risk assessments did not consistently identify hazards or safe measures in response to people’s specific needs.

Robust recruitment practices were not always followed to make sure staff were suitable. The service had a safeguarding policy and procedure, but this was not in line with current national legislation. This meant the service did not always follow the proper procedures to protect people or alert statutory agencies. Planned and actual rotas did not always accurately reflect the level of staff required or the identity of all staff. There was no system in place to show how agreed levels of staff support were transferred to staff rotas to meet people's needs.

The storage of people’s medicines was well managed and records indicated people received their medicines as prescribed. However, we found written guidance did not always provide enough detail about ‘when required’ medicine for staff to follow.

There was a lack of comprehensive and robust oversight by the registered manager and provider. Shortfalls had been missed and action was not taken to prevent the service from falling below an acceptable standard. People's care planning documentation and management records were not always complete, accurate or contemporaneous.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice. We have made a recommendation that the provider works to the principles of mental capacity legislation.

The service did not always (consistently) apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people did not fully reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support due to limited inclusion. For example, care plans and key working records did not consistently demonstrate how people were involved in decisions about their care.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning qua