You are here

Archived: Living Independently Staffordshire - Newcastle Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now managed by a different provider - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 January 2017

The inspection took place on 11 October 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available. At the inspection in July 2013 we found the service did not meet required standards as the quality and accuracy of records did not fully protect people from the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care. We asked the provider to make the necessary improvements to the quality and accuracy of the records. At this inspection we found the improvements had been made.

Living Independently Staffordshire is a short term reablement service, for people living in the Newcastle under Lyme area. The service supported people to maximise or regain their independence following a period of illness or hospital admission. This included a scheme for assessing the needs of people who were living with dementia to ascertain the level of support they required to remain in their own home. Support was usually provided within a person's own home and was available seven days a week between 7am and 10pm. At the time of the inspection 57 people were being supported by the 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.

People received outstanding personalised care and support. People were involved in all decisions about their care and the service had creative and innovative ways of enabling people to regain their independence and lead as full a life as possible. Support plans were extremely personalised and had been discussed and agreed with the people.

The service was very well-led. The registered manager was focused upon improving the quality of the service and there was a strong emphasis on continuous improvement. There were clear lines of management responsibility. Support workers told us they felt supported to fulfil their role and the registered manager was approachable. Systems were in place to continually monitor the safety and quality of the service. There were processes in place to monitor quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service. The registered manager and support workers demonstrated strong values and a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the service.

Robust systems were in place to ensure that people were supported by support workers who were of continuing good character and able to carry out their work safely and effectively. Support workers received full induction training, annual updates and refreshers to ensure they were fully skilled to provide the support. Support workers had regular opportunities to meet with their seniors either on a one to one basis or in support workers meetings.

People were supported in their own homes and told us they felt safe and comfortable with the service provided. Support workers had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse and were aware of the procedures to follow if they suspected that someone was at risk of harm.

People were offered support in a way that upheld their dignity and promoted their independence. Care and support plans were written in a personalised way based on the needs of the person concerned. People’s care and support needs were assessed and continually reviewed to ensure they received the appropriate support from the service to regain and maintain a level of independence.

People told us the staff and support workers were kind, caring and supportive. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed to ensure that people's rights were respected.

People’s medicines were managed safely; support workers were well trained and supported people with their

Inspection areas



Updated 13 January 2017

The service was safe. Support workers met people�s individual needs and kept people safe. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Support workers knew the procedures to follow if they suspected someone was at risk of harm. Risks to people�s health and wellbeing were identified, managed and reviewed. Robust recruitment procedures were in place. Medicines were safely administered and people who used the service received their medicines in the way that had been prescribed for them.



Updated 13 January 2017

The service was effective. The principles of the MCA were followed to ensure that decisions were made in people�s best interests. Support workers had good knowledge and understanding of people's care and support needs. People were supported with their nutritional and healthcare needs when this was required.



Updated 13 January 2017

The service was caring. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were supported and encouraged to regain and retain their own level of independence.



Updated 13 January 2017

The service was very responsive. People received individualised and personalised care which had been discussed and planned with them. Staff had a thorough understanding of how people wanted to be supported, care plans were person-centred and people received individualised care and support that met their needs. People�s changing needs were identified promptly and support workers ensured these needs were met through the involvement of other agencies. People were provided with information about how to make a complaint.



Updated 13 January 2017

The service was very well-led. The registered manager and all support workers were consistent in their understanding of the principles of the service and passionate about the care they provided to people. All support workers had an excellent knowledge of the needs of all people who used the service. There were robust systems to assure quality and identify any potential improvements to the service.