We carried out a review of the data available to us about Max Potential 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 Max Potential, you can give feedback on this service.
Max Potential is a care home providing personal care to people with a learning disability and autistic people. The service accommodates 4 people on a permanent basis. At the time of the inspection 4 people were using the service.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had processes in place to support people with end-of-life decisions but did not always record people’s wishes effectively. We made recommendations about recording people’s end-of-life plans.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
Right Support:
Staff supported people with their medicines in a way which promoted their independence and achieved the best possible health outcome. The temperature medicines were stored at were not always monitored. However, this was rectified by the provider at the time of the inspection. Staff supported people to play an active role in maintaining their own health and wellbeing. All relatives felt people we safe and happy at Max Potential.
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.
Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life. People had a choice about their living environment and were able to personalise their rooms.
Right Care:
The provider had robust safeguarding systems which included working alongside other agencies when things went wrong. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. People could communicate with staff and understand information given to them because staff supported them consistently and understood their individual communication needs.
People could take part in activities and pursue interests tailored to them. The provider gave people opportunities to try new activities which enhanced and enriched their lives.
People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs. Staff understood how to protect people from poor care, abuse, and harm.
Right Culture:
People told us they felt safe and knew how to raise concerns. Staff supported infection prevention and control processes. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment processes ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
People, and those important to them, were involved in planning their support. Managers ensured risks of a closed culture were minimised, so people received support based on transparency, respect, and inclusivity.
People’s health and nutrition needs were supported, and staff were aware of their responsibility to promote people’s rights. Systems were in place to monitor quality and safety.
People received a good standard of care, support, and treatment because trained staff and specialists could meet their needs and wishes. Staff placed people's wishes, needs, and rights at the heart of everything they did.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 11 January 2018).
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and due to the length of time since the service was last inspected.
Recommendations
We have made recommendations about the recording of people’s end-of-life wishes.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
There was a registered manager in place, who was also the provider of the service. 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.
The service had an up to date safeguarding policy, staff had attended safeguarding training and were able to explain what constituted a safeguarding concern and how they would record and report this.
The people who currently used the service had varying abilities and there were suitable numbers of staff to meet their needs. Staff recruitment was robust and helped ensure staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.
Medicines systems at the service were safe and staff had undertaken appropriate training. Health and safety records were complete and up to date. General and individual risk assessments were in place and were updated regularly.
Staff induction was thorough and training was on-going, with regular refreshers for mandatory training. There were regular staff supervision sessions and annual appraisals.
Care files included relevant information about people’s health and well-being. The service made appropriate referrals to other services. Information could be presented in languages other than English and easy read formats to help make it accessible to all.
People’s nutritional and hydration requirements were clearly documented and any dietary requirements adhered to. The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People told us they liked living at the home and staff were kind. Dignity and privacy was promoted by staff and independence was encouraged.
Service user meetings were held on a weekly basis and a service user guide was produced which contained information about the service. From speaking to people who used the service it was evident that they felt involved with their care and support.
Care plans included person-centred information about each individual and support was tailored to each person’s individual needs and wishes. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
A range of activities and outings were accessed by the people who used the service. People were encouraged to access education and one person attended college. There were outings and short holidays arranged by the service for those who wished to participate.
There was a complaints procedure in place and we saw the response to a complaint, which was timely and appropriate. Minor concerns were sorted out on a day to day basis.
The management team were described as supportive and approachable. There was evidence of partnership working with other professional agencies and appropriate referrals were made when required. Regular staff meetings took place at the service.
A number of regular audits and checks were carried out to help ensure the quality of the service delivery. All records were complete and up to date.
We carried out this unannounced inspection on 10 December 2014. This was the first inspection for this service.
Max Potential provides respite care for up to four adults with learning and/or physical disabilities, people with mental health issues and older people who require support with personal care needs. The owner of the home also manages the day to day services.
The property is located in a primarily Asian community, serving a predominantly, though not exclusively Asian client group. It is in a residential area close to amenities, such as shops, a mosque and a library. Public transport links to Bolton town centre are close by. The property has been adapted to cater for those with restricted mobility, and includes wide corridors, spacious rooms and a walk in shower.
There was a registered manager at the home. 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.
We were not able to speak with people who currently used the service, due to the nature of their disabilities, but we spoke with two relatives. They felt their loved ones were safe and well looked after.
The premises were adapted for and accessible to people with restricted mobility. Appropriate fire equipment and posters were in place around the home the building was warm and clean.
We saw that the home had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures and these were followed when required. Staff had received training and were aware of the policies and procedures and confident they would be able to recognise and report any abuse or poor practice they may witness.
Systems were in place for the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medication. Staff had received adequate training in medication.
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service and staff were recruited safely and robust recruitment and induction procedures were followed for new staff.
Food was cooked on the premises and people’s individual nutritional needs were catered for. Dietary and cultural requirements were respected with regard to meals.
Care plans included a range of health and personal information and were regularly reviewed and updated. There was evidence that people were involved in their support plans and reviews as per current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) quality standards guidance. Care plans were person centred and individual, including people’s wishes and preferences.
Staff were seen to treat people with kindness and patience throughout the day. Dignity and privacy was observed to be respected by staff. Staff training was undertaken in all relevant areas and was comprehensive and on-going. The records showed that staff worked within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) MCA, which sets out the legal requirements and guidance around how to ascertain people’s capacity to make particular decisions at certain times.
The registered manager had a thorough knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which are used when a person needs to be deprived of their liberty in their own best interests. This can be due to a lack of insight into their condition or the risks involved in the event of the individual leaving the home alone. The staff were to undertake training in DoLS via the local authority as soon as it was available.
Staff were supported through staff meetings and supervision. Staff were encouraged to put forward suggestions and voice concerns via team meetings, supervision and staff surveys.
The service sought feedback and suggestions from people who used the service and their relatives via questionnaires and more informally through regular conversations with relatives. There was evidence that they took on board any suggestions or concerns.
The complaints procedure was displayed in the home and complaints were responded to in a timely and appropriate way.
The registered manager was described as approachable by people who used the service, staff and relatives.
A number of audits and checks were carried out regularly to monitor the quality of the service. These included health and safety checks, fire drills and equipment audits, accident and incident audits and medication audits.
We saw that appropriate policies and procedures were in place and that there was guidance available for staff.
We looked at a sample of two care plans and saw that efforts were made to ensure that these were personal and tailored to the person's individual needs. We saw evidence that people's wishes and preferences were considered and that the service was flexible and accommodating to changes in people's circumstances and needs.
We spoke with the relative of a person who used the service. They were pleased with the care their relative received and felt they were "well looked after". They told us that the service was available at short notice, which was very helpful to them.
We looked at the training records and found that all staff had undertaken training in safeguarding. We saw that this issue was taken seriously and any concerns reported and recorded appropriately.
The service had robust recruitment procedures in place and staff were required to undertake thorough induction processes and training. Further training was made available for staff to enhance their knowledge and expertise in order to provide a better quality service.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and efforts were made to continually improve service delivery.