We carried out a review of the data available to us about Manor Court Chambers on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Manor Court Chambers, you can give feedback on this service.
The service has been 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 receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service:
People felt safe using the service and the staff team were aware of their responsibilities for keeping people safe from avoidable harm.
Risks associated with people’s care and support and been assessed and appropriately managed.
Recruitment processes ensured only suitable people worked at the service and suitable numbers of knowledgeable and skilled staff were available to meet people’s needs.
People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. The staff team had received training in infection control and the appropriate protective equipment was provided.
The registered manager ensured lessons were learned when things went wrong and continually looked at ways of improving the service.
People’s care and support needs had been assessed and they were supported to live healthier lives. Comprehensive plans of care were in place and people received the care and support they preferred.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
The staff team were kind and caring and treated people with respect.
People’s thoughts on the service were regularly sought and monitoring systems were in place to check the quality and safety of the service being provided.
The rating at the last inspection: The last rating for this service was good (report published 14 September 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Powell House is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes, including three supported living locations. Support hours provided by the agency ranged from three hours to 24 hours. At the time of our visit the agency supported eight people with personal care and employed 15 care workers, including six bank workers.
At the time of this inspection the location was registered with us in the name of Powell House. However, the provider told us the location was more widely known as Individual Support Solutions. The provider confirmed they would be submitting an application to us for the name of the location to be changed to Individual Support Solutions.
The service had a registered manager. A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have 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 and relatives told us they felt safe using the service and care workers understood how to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety inside and outside their homes were identified and care workers understood how these should be managed.
There were enough suitably qualified care workers to meet people’s needs effectively. People received their care and support from care workers who they knew, and at the times agreed. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability to support people in their homes.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Records showed MCA assessment were completed when needed. However, where people had been assessed as not having capacity to make certain decisions information about how decision were to be made in people’s best interest were not always clearly documented. Care workers gained people’s consent before they provided personal care and respected the decision people made.
People were supported with dignity and respect. People were supported and encouraged to live as independently as possible, according to their needs and abilities. People told us care workers were caring and kind and understood their needs.
Care workers completed training considered essential to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. Care workers completed an induction when they joined the service and had their practice regularly checked by a member of the management team.
Care workers supported people to see healthcare professionals when needed and to follow the health professionals' advice. Systems were in place to manage people’s medicines safely and care workers had received training to do this.
People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Care workers understood people's needs and abilities because they read the care plans and shadowed experienced staff when they started working for the service. Care records reflected people’s current needs and gave care workers the information needed to ensure care and support was provided in the way people preferred.
People and relatives did not have any complaints about the service. However, they knew how to raise any concerns because they had been provided with a copy of the provider’s complaint procedure. People and relatives felt any concerns raised would be listened and responded to effectively.
People, relative’s and care workers felt the management team were approachable. Care workers felt valued because the management team were available to provide support and were receptive to their ideas and suggestions. Care workers and the management team shared common values about the aims and objectives of the service.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided and the provider regularly sought feedback from people and their relatives. The provider used this feedback to make some improvements to the service where needed.