This inspection was carried out on 25 and 26 September and 2 October 2018. This is the second comprehensive inspection of the service and was announced.Creative Support – Derby Service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care and 24 hours support to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults with learning disabilities and autism and associated disabilities.
At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service overall as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found evidence to support a continued rating of ‘Good’.
At the time of our inspection visit the service supported 10 people living in four ‘supported living’ houses so that they could live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing were provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.
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 continued to feel safe using the service. Risks related to people’s lives and wellbeing had been continuously assessed, monitored and reviewed to support people’s safety. Independence was promoted.
Staff knew how to keep people safe and understood their responsibility to protect people from the risk of abuse.
People continued to be supported with their medicines in a safe way. People could choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with this. People’s nutritional needs were met, and they were supported with their health care needs when required. The service worked with other organisations to ensure that people received co-ordinated care and support.
Staff recruitment systems reduced the risk of employing unsafe staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff available who worked flexibly to support people. Staff continued to be supported in their role and received regular training and supervision to provide effective care.
People continued to be involved and made decisions about all aspects of their care. People were encouraged to take positive risks. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People continued to receive person centred care. They were involved in the development and review of their care, and advocacy support was provided, when required. The support plans were in formats that people could understand. Support plans reflected the care and support people needed, specific communication needs and their likes, dislikes, and interests. People’s wellbeing and independence was promoted. People pursued their interests and hobbies and maintained contact with family and friends.
Systems were in place for people to express their views and to raise any complaints or concerns. Concerns were acted upon promptly and any lessons learned were shared with the staff team to improve the quality of care provided.
The provider promoted a culture of openness and worked partnership with other agencies. Quality monitoring systems were in place which supported continuous learning and improvement of the service. Regular audits were carried out on all aspects of the service and areas identified for further improvement had appropriate action taken.