Community Crisis Support Service

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from the risk of abuse by trained staff who had been appropriately recruited. Prescribed medicines were safely managed and administered to those people who required them. Care staff understood how to reduce the potential spread of infections by using appropriate techniques and protective equipment. Incidents were reviewed to identify any themes from which lessons could be learned.

People’s care needs were assessed, and support provided to meet those needs effectively. Staff received training, so they understood how people’s varied needs should be met. Information, about other agencies, was also given to people so they could access other support if needed. People’s ability to consent to receive support was assessed, and information could be provided to people in a range of different formats to meet their individual communication needs.

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.

People were supported by staff who were kind, well organised, and friendly. The service was flexible and could be varied according to people’s changing needs or preferences. Care was provided in ways which protected people’s privacy and dignity. Care staff encouraged people to take part in care tasks so that they could retain as much independence as possible.

People received a service that was responsive to their needs and which could commence at short notice. The provider sought feedback from the people who used the service and the service received many compliments. The care staff often provided support to people who were at the final stages of their life. The support was provided with compassion and kindness. The provider also provided support to the care staff, as they recognised that end of life care can be difficult for some staff.

People received support from a service that was well managed. Care staff were supported by their managers and by each other. When incidents happened, the manager understood their responsibility to make the necessary notifications to the relevant authorities. The service worked in close partnership with other agencies to enable people to obtain the support needed to meet their care and individual needs. The provider had the necessary monitoring processes in place to ensure the service continued to provide good quality support for people.

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 (published 23 March 2017).

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.

Red Cross Crisis Intervention Community Support provides short term personal care and support to people in the Nottingham area. There were 14 people receiving care in their own homes at the time of our visit.

There was not a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During our previous inspection on 15 July 2015 we identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to risks associated with managing medicines, because the processes in place were not robust or followed safely to ensure medicines were handled and administered safely.

During this inspection we checked to see whether improvements had been made. We found improvements had been made in regards to the breach identified at our last inspection. An action plan was in place to fully complete the action required that would ensure sustainability.

People told us they felt safe when staff supported them within their home. People were supported by staff who could identify the different types of abuse and who to report concerns to. Assessments of the risks to people’s safety were in place and regularly reviewed.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff in place to keep people safe. Safe recruitment processes were in place.

People were protected from the risks associated with managing medicines. There were processes in place to ensure medicines were handled and administered safely.

Staff received training, regular supervision and felt supported by the management team. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were considered when supporting people. People were supported and encouraged to follow a healthy and balanced diet. People’s day to day health needs were met effectively by the staff.

People felt the staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect and dignity. People were involved with decisions made about their care and support. Information was available for people if they wished to speak with an independent advocate. People were supported to live independently.

People knew how to raise any concerns and they knew who they should contact and raise the concern with. The provider followed their procedures to ensure any complaints or concerns were dealt with in a timely manner.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the service. A number of systems were in place that enabled people, staff and relatives to give their views about the service. Robust quality assurance processes were in place.