Background to this inspection
Updated
27 May 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection of Wilf Ward DCA East Riding took place on 14, 15 and 18 April 2016 and was unannounced. One Adult Social Care inspector and a graduate student on secondment to the Care Quality Commission from Skills for Care carried out the inspection. The graduate student was shadowing an inspection as part of their secondment learning experience while on the Skills for Care graduate scheme.
Information had been gathered before the inspection from notifications that had been sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), from speaking to the local authorities that contracted services with Wilf Ward DCA East Riding and from people who had contacted CQC, since the service was registered, to make their views known about the support people received. We had also received a ‘provider information return’ (PIR) from the registered provider. A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
We spoke with six people that used the service, four relatives, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We also spoke with six staff and two unit managers that worked at Wilf Ward DCA East Riding. We looked at care files belonging to four people that used the service and at some recruitment documents and training records held for three staff. Complete recruitment files were stored at the Wilf Ward family Trust head office in Pickering and were therefore not seen.
We looked at records and documentation relating to the running of the service, including the quality assurance and monitoring, medication management and the registered office premises safety systems that were implemented. We looked at a small sample of documents relating to the safety of premises at the Independent Supported Living properties. We looked at equipment maintenance records and records held in respect of complaints and compliments.
We observed staff providing support to people in their personal flats and in the communal areas of the Independent Supported Living properties. Where people shared a house no support was observed being given to them in bedrooms. Bedrooms were viewed with their permission but only when not being used. We looked around people’s personal flats but only with their permission to do so, first. We observed the interactions between people that used the service and staff.
Updated
27 May 2016
The inspection of Wilf Ward DCA East Riding took place on 14, 15 and 18 April 2016 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection the service had received since its registration on 23 September 2013, under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These regulations were superseded on 1 April 2015 by the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Therefore this first inspection was also the first rated inspection for the service.
Wilf Ward DCA East Riding provided care and support to people with learning difficulties who lived in Independent Supported Living (ISL) accommodation in the communities in and around East Riding of Yorkshire. The service supported people who lived in properties in Beverley, Brough, Driffield, Elloughton and Walkington at the time of our inspection and there was a total of 19 people that used the service. There were no longer any people in the general and wider community that received a service from Wilf Ward DCA East Riding. People had separate tenancy agreements with Chevin Housing Group to live in their Independent Supported Living accommodation and therefore their tenancy agreements were not with Wilf Ward DCA East Riding.
The registered provider was required to have a registered manager in post. At the time of our inspection there was a manager that had been registered and in post for the last two and a half years, which was the length of time the service had been registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
People were protected from the risk of harm because the registered provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of managing potential and actual safeguarding concerns. Risks that people faced were managed and reduced so that people avoided injury as much as possible.
The DCA office premises were safely maintained and ISL properties were treated like care homes in respect of protecting people’s safety, so they too were well maintained. There was evidence in the form of maintenance certificates, contracts and records to show this in all cases. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s need and where it was identified that people required one-to-one support this was always provided. Recruitment policies, procedures and practices were followed to ensure staff were suitable to care for and support vulnerable people and there was evidence that some people were a part of the recruitment interviews. The management of all medicines was safely carried out and some people were supported to self-administer medicines.
People were cared for and supported by qualified, competent and experienced staff. The registered provider ensured staff were regularly supervised and they took part in an appraisal scheme. Staff awards were annually issued. Communication was effective, people’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected.
People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. The ISL properties were suitably equipped, furnished and decorated for providing support to people with physical disabilities and learning difficulties.
We found that people received support that was ‘parental’ but not condescending from considerate staff who were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences. People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook any support tasks.
People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected and staff worked to maintain these wherever possible. This ensured people were respected, that they led fulfilling lives and were enabled to take control of their futures.
We saw that people were supported according to their person-centred care plans, which reflected their needs well and which were regularly reviewed. People engaged in activities of their choosing and whenever they wished. Often activities and occupation involved developing ‘living skills’, experiencing the ‘wider world’ and enjoying simple pleasures. People had very good family connections and support networks. So that their lives were busy and full.
There was an effective complaint procedure in place and people had complaints investigated without bias. These were well documented and quickly resolved. People that used the service, relatives and their friends were encouraged to maintain healthy relationships and opportunities were offered to develop new friendships if people wished to.
The service was well-led and people had the benefit of a culture and a management style that was positive, open and inclusive. There was an effective system in place for checking the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys, meetings and good communication.
People had opportunities to make their views known in conversations with the registered manager, unit manager or the staff and through more formal mediums like complaints and quality monitoring systems. People were assured that recording systems used in the service protected their privacy and confidentiality as records were well maintained and were held securely in the ISL properties.