Background to this inspection
Updated
15 May 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 15 March 2018 and was announced. The provider was given four days’ notice. This was because the location provides a supported living service and we needed to arrange to speak to people as part of this inspection and speak to staff. The inspection visit was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience did not attend the office base of the service or visit people at home, but spoke by telephone with people and relatives of people who used the service.
The inspection was informed by information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications the provider had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. We used this to formulate our inspection plan.
On this occasion we did not ask the provider to send a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. This 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. However, at the inspection we offered the manager and management team the opportunity to share information they felt relevant with us.
We spoke with seven people who used the service and three relatives. We spoke with six support workers, three co-ordinators and the manager. We looked at the care files of three people who used the service to see if their information was accurate and up to date. We reviewed three staff file to see how they were recruited and checked information about their training. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service. This included audits the manager had in place to ensure the quality of the service was continuously monitored and reviewed.
Updated
15 May 2018
This inspection took place on 15 March 2018 and was announced.
Living Independently Service Lichfield and Tamworth provides personal care support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 31 people were receiving support. This reablement service is available for approximately six weeks to enable people to regain their physical ability and re-build their confidence following a period of ill health.
The service did not have a registered manager in post. 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. A manager was in post and confirmed they had commenced the process to register with us. We will monitor this.
At our last inspection, we rated the service Good. Since the last inspection the office base of the service [known as the location] had moved address. The provider had failed to formally notify us of this, which is a requirement of their registration. Due to the lack of a registered manager when moving address the provider had been unable to register the location. This is also a requirement of their registration. This meant the provider was in breach of the conditions of their registration.
We have therefore rated the ‘Well Led’ section of the report as Requires Improvement. Due to the breaches in the provider’s conditions of registration; the overall rating is Requires Improvement. This is because the overall rating for a service cannot be better than ‘Requires Improvement’ if there is a breach of regulations. Providers rated as good are meeting the standards set out in the regulations and display the characteristics of good care
With regard to the support people received and the management of the service we did not identify any concerns.
People felt safe with the support they received and staff understood how to safeguard them from harm. Risks were assessed and managed to reduce potential hazards. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, and safe recruitment processes were followed. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to hygiene and infection control. Where people required support to take their medicines, this was done in a safe way.
Staff had the knowledge required to provide effective care and supported people to regain their independence and maintain their health and wellbeing. People were supported to prepare meals of their choice and regain their skills. People were enabled to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff assisted them in the least restrictive way possible.
People were supported by staff that were compassionate and caring and were consulted and involved in making decisions about their care. People’s privacy was respected and their dignity promoted.
Individualised support was provided to people that took account of their diverse needs and preferences. People knew how to raise any concerns or complaints, and these were addressed promptly.
The service was well led, and the management team were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff were passionate about their role and enjoyed working at the service. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback to develop the service. The provider worked in partnership with other agencies and teams, and systems were in place to drive ongoing improvements.
We found a breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 and a breach of the provider’s registration conditions under Section 33 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.