We carried out a review of the data available to us about Chrysalis 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 Chrysalis, you can give feedback on this service.
Chrysalis is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to eight people living with a learning disability at the time of the inspection. Care is provided to two people who live in their own flats and to six people who live in one large supported living property. 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 and what we found
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.The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People told us they felt safe and there were enough staff to support them on an individual basis. Risk was managed well so that people could be as independent as possible. Staff were appropriately recruited and staffing levels met people's assessed needs. Infection control was well managed and people supported to keep their homes clean and hygienic. People were supported to manage their medicines. The supported living service was still fairly new and the provider had continued to monitor the development of the scheme, learning all the time to ensure things ran smoothly.
The staff team were suitably trained and supervised. The registered manager ensured their practice was monitored so the team could continue to develop. For example there had been recent team meetings where staff discussed the progress of independence building and how they would put it into practice. Staff training covered all aspects of supporting people living with a learning disability. Staff had received training on specific needs of individuals and further training on up to date practice was underway. People were supported to be as well as possible, with routine visits to health care providers and a focus on exercise and healthy eating.
Staff displayed a caring attitude. They spoke about people in a respectful and empathic way. People responded warmly to the staff team and told us they were well supported. People in the service wanted to do more for themselves and the staff were working on individual goals that would increase independent living skills. People had regular reviews of their needs and had a say in the shared experiences in the supported living setting. People had access to advocacy and advocates had been involved, along with families when decision making had been complex.
Very detailed assessments of strengths and needs were in place and we saw very good care plans for individuals. People knew what was in their care plans and were happy with the goals they had set for themselves. Every person had daily and weekly planners and they went out to the gym, to socialise and to shop. People went to concerts and other entertainments; enjoyed spa days and went out for meals. No one had any complaints on the day and complaints and concerns were appropriately managed. Staff had not yet considered end of life considerations but this was in their future plans.
The team in the supported living had a well-respected team leader who reported to the registered manager. Together they led the teams who provided care to all eight service users. Staff understood the governance arrangements and also understood that quality was monitored on an on-going basis. Chrysalis had well defined values and a person-centred vision, supporting and encouraging people living with a learning disability to live meaningful lives.
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 (2 august 2017 published ).
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.
The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. As the people who use this service often accessed community activities we needed to make sure people were available to speak to us.
Chrysalis provides personal care to people who have a learning disability or other complex needs. At the time of our inspection Chrysalis were offering support to two individuals who lived in a supported living tenancy and to two people living in the community. The organisation runs a day service for people who have a learning disability and runs a social enterprise shop in the town of Wigton.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager (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 feedback we received from people using the service and their relatives was very positive. Social and healthcare professionals were all very complimentary about the working relationships with the service. One healthcare professional told us, “This service is one that I would feel proud to work in.”
We saw the service had a very strong, visible person-centred culture. All staff were passionate about caring and supporting people in ways that mattered to the individual. The service demonstrated an excellent commitment to providing care which was of a high quality and staff were very enthusiastic about supporting people to lead interesting lives of their own choosing. The service put people’s views at the forefront of the service and designed the service around people’s needs.
People made great progress whilst they used the service and people were encouraged to discover and achieve their goals and aspirations. The manager and senior team spoke of their passion to give people the best support possible.
People's experiences of care were overwhelmingly positive. People were treated with care, compassion and great kindness. Staff had an empowering and empathetic attitude to support people’s personal development, and each person was supported in a way that was individual to them and in ways that promoted their independence.
People were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People told us they felt very safe and were well cared for. Staff were confident about how to protect people from harm and what they would do if they had any safeguarding concerns.
Newly recruited staff had thorough pre-employment checks and received induction that prepared them for the demands of their job. Staff confirmed their induction had equipped them well with the essential knowledge and practical guidance they needed before they took up their care duties. All staff felt very supported by the organisation and had very good opportunities for personal development and career progression.
Training was given a very high priority in this service. A dedicated training manager was employed who had developed a programme of extensive training that was designed around the needs of the people they were supporting. The management team identified and utilised the strengths of the staffing team.
People’s rights were protected and staff obtained people’s consent before providing care. The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People made informed choices and were enabled to be involved in decisions.
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.
The nutritional needs of people using the service were assessed and regularly monitored. People took as much control over their nutrition as they were able and staff supported people to learn and understand the importance of this.
The provider took people’s safety very seriously. Comprehensive risk assessments were in place to reduce and manage the risks to peoples’ health and welfare. There were systems in place to make sure that people were supported to take medicines safely and as prescribed.
People’s choices were at the forefront of the service and people were encouraged to be involved and have a say about matters that had an impact on them. People were given every opportunity to be involved in the running of the service and to provide their opinions and feedback about what they wanted.
Complaints were taken seriously and appropriately investigated with action taken to make improvements to the service when this was found to be necessary. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints and felt comfortable doing so.
The service had a strong leadership team who promoted clear values and an open culture. The manager demonstrated a very good understanding of the importance of effective quality assurance systems in promoting a high quality of service. Both the manager and the senior team had high expectations of staff and gave them as much support and training needed to provide a reliable, efficient and compassionate service to people. Staff were extremely proud to work for the organisation.
This announced inspection took place on the 4th March 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. As the people who use this service often accessed community activities we needed to make sure people were available to speak to us. Chrysalis provides personal care to people who have a learning disability or other complex needs.
This was the first visit to this service which was registered by The Care Quality Commission (CQC) in August 2013. Although the service was registered in 2013 Chrysalis did not start to provide the regulated activity of personal care until April 2014. At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care and support to two people.
There was a registered manager in post on the day of our visit. 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 inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.
We found that people who used this service were safe. The support workers knew how to protect people from harm. All staff had completed training in the safety of vulnerable adults and knew the signs to look for and how to report any incidents of concern. There were good systems in place to ensure people knew the staff that supported them. Staff rosters had been discussed with the management team, the support workers and the people who were supported by this agency.
We saw that the provider had robust recruitment policies and procedures which ensured only suitable people were employed to care for vulnerable people with complex needs.
We found that the service worked well with external agencies such as social services, other care providers and mental health professionals to provide appropriate care to meet people’s physical and emotional needs.
We saw that medicines were administered safety and all the records were up date and audited regularly. All staff had completed training in the safe handling of medicines.
We saw people were encouraged to take part in a variety of activities in the community as well as the opportunity to attend the day care service organised by the registered provider.
The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. This helped to protect the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions themselves. Best interest meetings were held to assist people who were not always able to give consent and make difficult decisions for themselves.
We saw that professional advice from adult care social workers, the learning disability nurse and other health care advisors was accessed as and when necessary.
Personalised care plans were in place in a format that was suitable through pictures and symbols as well as writing.
There was an appropriate internal quality monitoring procedure in place. Checks or audits were completed in respect of, medicines management, care plans health and safety and equality and diversity. These checks ensured people were cared for and supported in the way they chose themselves.