Background to this inspection
Updated
24 October 2019
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.
Inspection activity started and ended on 11 September 2019.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This information helps support our inspections. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We visited the office where the service was managed. We spoke with both the registered manager and the nominated individual. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We looked at a variety of records related to the running of the service. These included the care and risk management plans of two people using the service, the staff files for four support workers and records the provider kept for monitoring the quality of the service.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We emailed one person who used the service and spoke with three relatives. We spoke with two health and adult social care professionals who have worked with the service. We also spoke with a team leader and two support staff.
Updated
24 October 2019
About the service
Ealing Mencap Enterprise Lodge is a domiciliary care provider that provides personal care and support to people with a learning disability and/autism who live in their own homes or with their families. Some people also lived with physical disabilities. Four people were using the service at the time of this inspection and they engaged support staff as ‘personal assistants.’ 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.
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
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 quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.
As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.
A relative told us, “I’m a firm supporter [of the service] and they have done a really good job.” Staff were caring, treated people with respect and promoted their dignity, privacy and independence.
People’s care and risk management plans were personalised and met their needs safe. Staff were aware of the people’s individual needs and how they wanted to be supported. Relatives said they felt people were safe.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Some relatives said staff were not always on time when they visited people at their homes. Staff received induction, training and regular supervision.
The provider sought feedback from people, relatives and staff and used this to develop the service. Complaints were handled appropriately.
There was a management structure in place and staff felt the registered manager supported them in their roles. The provider had a clear vision for the service, based on a commitment to its organisational values. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify when improvements were required.
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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 16 March 2017).
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.