Archived: Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited - Sheffield

At the time of this inspection Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited - Sheffield was supporting 11 people whose support included the provision of the regulated activity personal care. Some of the people supported were under 16 years of age and included sibling groups. We were unable to fully communicate directly with the children and younger adults receiving support. We spoke with their representatives and relatives to obtain their views of the support provided.

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 on-going 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.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

Relatives and representatives of people receiving support told us they were confident their family member was safe.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Policies and procedures for the safe administration of medicines were in place should this support be required.

There were robust recruitment procedures in operation to promote people’s safety.

Staff were appropriately trained and supervised to provide care and support to people who used the service.

Relatives and representatives of people receiving support felt staff had the right skills to do their job. They said staff were respectful and caring in their approach.

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 support plans contained relevant person centred information to inform staff. The support plans had been reviewed to ensure they were up to date.

People were confident in reporting concerns to the registered manager and felt they would be listened to.

There were quality assurance and audit processes in place to make sure the service was running well.

The service had a full range of policies and procedures available to staff.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At the time of this inspection Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited - Sheffield was supporting 15 people whose support included the provision of the regulated activity ‘personal care’. Some of the people supported were under 16 years of age and included sibling groups.

There was a registered manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our last full inspection at Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited - Sheffield took place on 14 April 2014. The service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time, with the exception of Regulation 23, Supporting Workers as we found gaps in the frequency of staff supervisions. We undertook a follow up inspection on 3 September 2014 and found action had been taken to address and meet regulations relating to staff supervisions.

This inspection took place on 11 January 2016 and short notice was given. We told the registered manager two working days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available.

People supported by the service and their relatives or representatives told us they felt (their relative was) safe with their care givers and staff were respectful. People told us the support provided met their needs and the care givers were kind, caring and polite. People spoken with said they had regular care givers that they knew well. They knew which care giver would be visiting to support them and care givers always arrived when they should and stayed the full length of time agreed.

At the time of this inspection no person was supported with their medicines. However, we found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely, should this support be required.

Staff recruitment procedures were thorough and ensured people’s safety was promoted.

Staff were provided with relevant induction and training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Staff understood their role and what was expected of them. They were happy in their work, motivated and proud to work at the service. Staff were confident in the way the service was managed.

The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.

The support provided was person centred and each person had a support plan that accurately reflected their needs and wishes so that these could be respected. Support plans had been reviewed to ensure they remained up to date.

People supported, and their relatives or representatives said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and felt they would be listened to.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to. People using the service and their relatives had been asked their opinion via surveys and the results of these surveys had been audited to identify any areas for improvement.

As part of the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the business manager and three support workers.

This was a follow up inspection to check that improvements had been made to supporting workers.

On our previous inspection on 14 April 2014 we identified concerns in relation to the provision of supervision and appraisal of staff to ensure staff were supported.

The manager of Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited - Sheffield submitted an action plan following our inspection which detailed the actions they intended to take in order to achieve compliance.

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service effective?

We visited the service on 03 September 2014 to check that improvements had been made to the provision of supervisions and appraisals to staff for their development and support. We found that a system had been developed to provide staff with supervision and appraisal at appropriate intervals to ensure service delivery was being monitored and was safe.

Staff spoken with confirmed that supervision and appraisal had been provided to them. They commented "we get good support. I had a supervision meeting today" and "the manager is always available and I see her every week."

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led? We gathered information from people using the service by telephoning them.

During the inspection we were not able to speak with some people using the service because we were unable to communicate verbally with them in a meaningful way. We were able to speak with one person being supported by the service. In addition we spoke with the relatives or representatives of six people supported.

We spoke with the registered manager, business manager and six support staff employed at Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited - Sheffield.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People supported by the agency, or their representatives told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

We found that risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant that people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

The registered manager organised the scheduling of visits to ensure people's preferences and identified needs were taken into account. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and their representatives, and they were involved in writing the support plans. People said that their support plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.

Staff were provided with training to ensure they had the skills to meet people's needs. Managers' were accessible to staff for advice and support. However, some staff were not provided with formal individual supervision and appraisals at an appropriate frequency to ensure they were adequately supported and their performance was appraised.

Is the service caring?

We asked people using the service and their relatives or advocates for their opinions about the support provided. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'they have never missed a visit, you can rely on them', 'they know (the person supported) really well. They were well matched', 'they (staff) are good. Overall I am satisfied'.

When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported and had a detailed knowledge of the person's interests, personality and support needs.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People spoken with said they had never had to make a complaint but knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We found that appropriate procedures were in place to respond to and record any complaints received. People could be assured that systems were in place to investigate complaints and take action as necessary.

Records seen showed that people had been listened to and the agency had responded to their views. We saw that one person's visit times had been changed in order to suit their preferences and needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, and systems were in place to ensure any issues were identified promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the agency. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.