Background to this inspection
Updated
12 January 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 inspection took place on 16 and 21 November 2017 and was announced. The registered provider was given short notice because the location was a domiciliary care agency and we wanted to ensure there was someone available to assist us with the inspection. The inspection team included an adult social care 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.
Prior to our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included a Provider Information Return (PIR) completed by the registered provider. This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at previous inspection reports, information received and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events and the registered provider is required to send us this by law. We contacted some other professionals who have contact with the service and commissioners who fund the care for some people and asked them for their views.
We spoke with 14 people who used the service by telephone and visited and spoke with seven people in their supported living accommodation during the inspection. We also spoke with eight staff, including support workers, service managers and the registered manager.
When we visited, four people said we could see their written records, including their individual care and support plans. We also considered information contained in some of the records held at the service. This included the care and support records for three people, staff recruitment and training records and other records kept by the registered manager as part of their management and auditing of the service.
Updated
12 January 2018
This inspection took place on 16 and 21 November 2017 and was announced. The service was last inspected on 29 September and 1 October 2015. At that time, the service was rated ‘Good’ across each of the five key questions.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Royal Mencap Society - Sheffield Domiciliary Care Agency’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.’
The Sheffield branch of the Royal Mencap Society is situated on the outskirts of Rotherham and provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes and to people living in supported living settings in the Sheffield area. At the time of the inspection 92 people were receiving care and support from the service.
A registered manager was 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 people that we spoke with had no concerns about the safety of the service. The registered provider had delivered training for staff and managers regarding safeguarding people. The staff we spoke with were able to explain the different types of abuse and what action they would take if they were concerned that abuse was taking place.
Relevant risks had been assessed and reviewed regularly. Risk was reviewed and maintained a focus on positive risk taking to support people’s independence.
The recruitment system was robust, meaning that only staff with the right skills and aptitude were employed by the registered provider. Staff performance was managed via a system of staff supervisions and appraisals.
Staff were trained in a range of subjects which were relevant to the needs of the people who used the service. Subjects included; safeguarding adults, moving and handling, administration of medication, Mental Capacity Act 2005 and equality and diversity.
People who used the service spoke positively about the way in which staff provided support, spoke with them and the impact the service had on their life.
We had the opportunity to observe staff providing support during the inspection. We saw that staff demonstrated care, kindness and warmth in their interactions with people. It was clear from their conversations and manner that the staff knew each person well and valued them as individuals.
People were supported by staff who understood their health needs and ensured they had sufficient to eat and drink to maintain their wellbeing. People were supported to shop for food and prepare meals in accordance with their specific needs and individual preferences.
People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was protected. People were supported by a service which was person centred and put their interests first.
People were able to influence the way their care and support was delivered and they could rely on this being provided as they wished. Staff described the services as promoting choice, independence and control for the individual. This choice included; staff, activities and times of support.
People’s human right to make decisions for themselves was respected and they provided consent to their care when needed. Where people were unable to do so the registered provider followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make the least restrictive decisions in people’s best interest.
The organisation had a clear set of visions and values which were communicated in brochures and other promotional materials. These visions and values were linked to organisational strategy and used as one of the criteria on which quality was assessed. Staff were able to explain the visions and values of the services and applied them in their practice.
There were systems and resources available to the management team to monitor quality and drive improvement.
The registered provider encouraged people and their families to provide feedback through a range of formal and informal mechanisms. They issued annual surveys and sought feedback at each review. Information from surveys was shared with people and their families. The information was available in a range of formats. We saw evidence that people’s views had been used to develop the service.