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 carried out on 11 October 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 13 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our previous inspection, we identified that the provider was not meeting the expected standards in some of these outcome areas. We set compliance actions, requiring the provider to make the improvements required to ensure the quality and safety of care.

At this inspection, we found a number of improvements had taken place.The provider had taken reasonable steps to regularly seek the views of people using the service. The assessment of people�s care supported the planning and delivery of their care and support, based on what people identified they needed or wanted help with.

The people and relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the support staff coming into their homes. They told us that care staff took their time and did not rush people. One person told us that, �They let me do the things I can do but help with the things I cannot do. Sometimes it is the little practical things I struggle with and they are there. They are helping me to get better.� Another person told us, �I am really pleased with the people who look after me.�

We found the completeness and quality of records relevant to the delivery of people�s care and support needed to improve. We looked at the care plans for four people receiving a service. The information recorded was not always detailed enough to ensure that people's needs were clear and understood..

Inspection carried out on 8 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were provided with information about the service and knew the care they would receive. Most people said they were asked about the times they wanted their care and this was respected.

People were happy with the care they received. Plans of care were not always kept up to date and did not include sufficient information about people's preferences. Risks to people were not always assessed and plans put in place to make sure the care was given safely.

People told us that they felt safe. Support workers were trained to identify the signs of abuse and knew what to do if they had any concerns.

People were supported by support workers that were trained to undertake their role.

People had the chance to comment about the quality of the service after it had finished. Systems to review and monitor the service were not being consistently applied. This meant that the provider could not be confident that people were receiving the care they needed in the way they wanted.