We carried out a review of the data available to us about Specialist Care Team Domiciliary Office 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 Specialist Care Team Domiciliary Office, you can give feedback on this service.
This service also provides care and support to people living in four supported living settings, so they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this part of the inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy
Rating at last inspection
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Why the service is rated Good
The service had systems to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.
Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.
Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs. One staff member told us, “The training was good, you got the skills to support people.”
Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People told us they received their medicines at the times they needed them.
The service had safe infection control procedures in place and staff had received infection control training. Staff had been provided with protective clothing such as gloves and aprons as required. This reduced the risk of cross infection.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s care and support was planned with them. People told us they had been consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered.
The registered manager planned visits to allow carers enough time to reach people and complete all tasks required. People told us they mostly had the same staff visit and relationships had developed. One person told us, “They are pleasant with me, when they come, and never miss a visit.”
Staff supported people to have a nutritious dietary and fluid intake. Assistance was provided in preparation of food and drinks to maintain people’s independence.
People were supported to have access to regular healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met through scheduled and responsive support.
People told us staff were caring towards them. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of high standards of care to give people meaningful lives.
The service had information with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by people they supported.
People told us staff who visited them treated them with respect and dignity.
People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The service had kept a record of complaints received and these had been responded to appropriately.
The service used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included daily service meetings, quality assurance visits and care reviews.
The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Specialist Care Team Domiciliary Office provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. The service supports people who have a learning disability or mental health needs in their own home. Support can be provided at specific times through to full time care during the day and night. The office is located close to Morecambe town centre. At the time of our inspection there were 29 people receiving a service from the Specialist Care Team Domiciliary Office.
The service had 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.
At the last inspection on 10 and 12 February 2014, we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations inspected.
Staff had received abuse training. They understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure and would not hesitate to raise an alert should it be required.
The provider had put in place procedures around recruitment and selection to minimise the risk of unsuitable employees working with vulnerable people. Required checks had been completed prior to any staff commencing work at the service. This was confirmed from discussions with staff.
We found staffing levels within the supported living service were adequate with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staffing levels were determined by the number of people being supported and their individual needs.
Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they were competent and had the skills required. People were supported to meet their care-planned requirements in relation to medicines.
Staff members received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs. Face to face training, not electronic learning was delivered to new staff. The registered manager told us this promoted discussion and helped new staff remember information.
People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care packages. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
People told us the same group of staff mostly supported them. This ensured staff understood the support needs of people they visited and how individuals wanted their care to be delivered. Conversations we observed between people and staff showed positive relationships had developed. Comments we received demonstrated people were satisfied with the service they received.
The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care. Compatibility visits took place prior to anyone moving into a 24 hour shared supported living tenancy. This allowed personalised care plans and support strategies to be in place beforehand.
A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain. Staff spoken with felt the management team were accessible, supportive and approachable and would listen and act on concerns raised.
The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People and relatives we spoke with during our inspection told us they were happy with the service. Quality audits had been completed and reviewed at the time of our inspection. The registered manager had oversight of the service provided.