Archived: Your Life Care and Support Limited

Updated 5 September 2018

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.

This inspection took place on 23 and 30 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it was small, the registered manager was often out supporting staff and we needed to ensure someone would be available in the office to meet us.

Inspection site visit activity started on 23 July 2018 and ended on 30 July 2018. We visited the office location on 23 July 2018 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. We visited people in their own houses and flats on 23 and 30 July 2018.

On 23 July 2018 one inspector visited the main office and on 30 July 2018 two inspectors visited people who used the service and spoke with staff at the on-site office.

To help us to plan the inspection we considered all the information we held about the service. For example, we looked at complaints and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to the Commission by law. We sent questionnaires to people who used the service and analysed the responses to these to inform this report.

We requested the views of other agencies that worked with the service, such as the local authority commissioners and safeguarding, healthcare professionals and Healthwatch Darlington. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We spoke with six people who used the service and two relatives over the telephone or in person. We spoke with the nominated individual, the registered manager, two service managers, two team leaders and three care staff. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the regulated activity provided.

We looked at documentation relating to four people who used the service in detail and at four staff files including; recruitment, training and support documentation. We also looked at documentation and systems that were in place to manage the service. We observed interactions between people and the staff supporting them.

Updated 5 September 2018

The inspection took place on 23 and 30 July 2018 and was announced.

The service provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community across Seaham. It provides a service to disabled adults. This included people with learning disabilities living in their own houses with 24 hour support and people who had support from staff at arranged times through the day.

At the time of the inspection 14 people were using the service. Seven of these people were living in a block of flats, there was a port-a-cabin in the grounds of the flats which staff used as a local office meaning they are on-site to provide support. The other people lived alone in various parts of the town. The service’s main office was also situated close by in Seaham.

This was the first inspection for this service.

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.

Recruitment processes were robust, which helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and staff were confident about reporting concerns.

Personal and environmental risks were assessed to ensure people could be supported in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Incidents and accidents were monitored, and action was taken to reduce risks.

People had been assessed to check if they were able to administer their own medicines. Plans had been put in place to ensure people were given the required support to take their medicines according to their individual needs.

Staff had undertaken a range of training that met people's needs. Staff were supported to develop their knowledge and skills. Learning from positive and negative support experiences was shared between staff to make improvements in their practice.

People were supported to lead healthier lives and maintain appropriate diets.

People told us they found staff caring and that care was delivered in a way that maintained their privacy and dignity.

People were supported to be as independent as possible.

People had care plans reflecting their likes, dislikes, needs and preference and we saw that people were involved in the assessment of their care. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure people received a seamless service that met all their needs.

The people we spoke with told us they knew how to raise any concerns and said they felt comfortable doing so. Procedures were in place to record and investigate any concerns or complaints.

We saw that people were encouraged to take part in meaningful activities and volunteering opportunities and that the service was highly flexible to support people being able to do their chosen activities.

The registered manager was aware of national guidance and good practice and work was ongoing to improve the service in-line with these.

People were consulted about their satisfaction with the service and told us they were happy or very happy with the services being provided.

We were told that people using the service and staff had good relationships with the management, who were accessible and approachable. Some people were unsure who the senior management were as there had been some recent changes to the company’s management structure.

The management team regularly checked the quality of the service with a view to continuous learning and improvement. The audit system had recently been reviewed and improved with a view to making it more robust. This process was not fully embedded in all the services yet.