8 April 2014
During a routine inspection
We considered all the evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
There were risk assessments in place for people using the service in relation to their support and care provision. People were not put at unnecessary risk, but also had choice and remained in control of their own decisions. This meant that people’s independence was promoted and they were not restricted from engaging in and accessing the wider community. However, we did note that these were not always periodically reviewed to ensure they were still current.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and safeguarding to ensure that people were safeguarded appropriately in line with current legislation. We saw however, that relevant resources were not readily available for staff, for example the code of practice for the MCA.
Recruitment practices were safe, thorough and effective procedures were in place to ensure staff were suitable for the role.
Is the service effective?
People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in compiling their individual support plans. Specialist needs had been identified in care plans where any were required. Information had been taken into account from other professionals and organisations which demonstrated that a holistic approach was undertaken with regards to support.
Is the service caring?
During our visit we saw that support workers interacted positively and gave encouragement when supporting people. People using the service told us, “They [staff] prompt me to do things for myself. They’re good staff, brilliant, we have a good laugh”, “They do a good job. …They’re very respectful….We’ve got a good set up here” and “Every morning and night I get support. They’re good.”
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 were supported and encouraged to complete tasks to promote their independence. People were assisted to access the community and health services where support was required.
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and said they would tell staff and would feel comfortable in doing so. People told us that they felt staff respected them and their choices.
We found that there was no process in place for people’s support plans to be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure that these were current and reflected the person’s needs. The deputy manager told us she would implement a system to ensure support plans would be formally reviewed regularly.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.
The service had a quality assurance and audit system in place but these were not always being formally recorded to identify any shortfalls. Feedback was sought on an informal basis but this was not being captured so that improvements could be made and good practice could be recognised.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Discussions on best practice, improved ways of working and knowledge sharing were common throughout formal team meetings and informal discussions.