Archived: Sue Ryder - Bixley

At the last inspection of 28 October 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

There was 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.

The service continued to provide a safe service to people. This included systems in place intended to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, infection control, and with their medicines. Care workers were available when people needed care and support and the recruitment of care workers was done safely.

People were supported by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs. People 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. Systems were in place to assess and meet people’s dietary and health needs, where required. The service worked with other organisations involved in people’s care to provide a consistent service.

Care workers had good relationships with people who used the service. People’s rights to privacy and independence were promoted and respected.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People received care and support which was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.

The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. A complaints procedure was in place. The service used comments from people and incidents in the service to learn and use this learning to drive improvement. As a result, the quality of the service continued to improve.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

One person told us that the staff, 'Are there if I need them.' Another person said, 'I don't have to do anything I don't want to.'

We observed that the staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff interacted with people in a friendly, respectful and professional manner. We saw that staff had a good understanding of people's needs and made sure they sought their consent before supporting them.

We saw that the provider ensured equipment was provided to safeguard people and to promote their independence and that it was properly maintained.

We assessed the staffing levels at the service and found that people's needs were met by sufficient numbers of appropriately trained and qualified staff. We also saw that the provider had systems in place to deal with complaints made about the service and that people were supported to make a complaint if they wanted to.

People told us that they were consulted about all aspects of the running of the service and that they were asked for their opinion on how well it was run. The care plans we saw were person centred and contained detailed information about people's physical needs and included information about how people liked to be addressed, their likes and dislikes and their daily routines.

People told us they had not needed to make a complaint nor had any worries.

But they believed that they would be listened to and that action would be taken immediately if they had concerns.

Staff were effectively trained and supervised; this meant that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.