Archived: Creative Support - West Berkshire Services

Updated 13 October 2017

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 8 and 15 September 2017 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 someone would be able to give us access to files and documentation. This inspection was carried out over two site visits with one inspector completing both days of the inspection, which included visiting people and speaking with staff. In addition, a third day was used to complete telephone calls to professionals, relatives and any stake holders.

Prior to the inspection we referred to previous inspection reports, local authority reports and notifications. Notifications are sent to the Care Quality Commission by the provider to advise us of any significant events related to the service, which they are required to tell us about by law. As part of the inspection process we also look at the Provider Information Return (PIR). 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. We had received the PIR for Creative Support – West Berkshire, which allowed us to consider areas to look into further.

During the inspection we spoke with five members of staff, including the registered manager, one team manager and three care staff. We spoke with eight people who use the service and two relatives of people who were authorised to speak with us on their behalf. In addition we spoke with three professionals from the local authority.

Records related to people’s support were seen for seven people. In addition, we looked at a sample of records relating to the management of the service. For example staff records, complaints, quality assurance assessments and policies and procedures. Staff recruitment and supervision records for seven of the staff team were reviewed.

Updated 13 October 2017

This inspection took place on 8 and 15 September 2017. This was an announced inspection as Creative Support West Berkshire is a Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) and supported living service. A DCA is a provision that offers specific hours of care and support to a person in their own home. The service was provided to people with a primary diagnosis of learning disabilities with associated needs. The service was offered to 42 people who received the regulated activity of personal care across eight complexes of privately rented sites including, houses and flats. We were told at the time of the inspection that the provider was considering reducing the number of complexes overseen by this location, however nothing had been confirmed. We therefore inspected all locations.

At the time of the inspection a registered manager had been in post since March 2016. The service had previously been registered at a different location, where the registered manager was registered, and CQC reports had rated the service as Good. 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.

Staff knew how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through the safeguarding procedure that was taught as part of the induction process. This was further followed through as a topic of discussion within team meetings and in individual supervision meetings. Systems and processes were in place to recruit staff who were suitable to work in the service and to protect people against the risk of abuse. People were supported with their medicines by suitably trained, qualified and experienced staff. Medicines were managed safely and securely, being kept in people’s individual flats.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained and experienced staff to ensure people’s needs were met at each location. Staff were matched to meet people’s needs as per experience, knowledge, age and general personality, where possible. This was particularly noticeable within the service catering to support people with high needs.

All staff received a thorough induction, a minimum of mandatory training and support from experienced members of staff, where required. Staff reported feeling supported by the registered manager and said they were listened to if they raised concerns.

People who could not make specific decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected. People’s care plans showed where decisions were made on behalf of a person, these were always done in the best interest of the person.

People using the service said they were happy with the support and care provided. People and where appropriate their representatives confirmed they were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans focussed on the individual and recorded their personal preferences. We noted that these were not always kept up to date, and that each complex used a different style of paperwork. The registered manager, advised us that measures would be taken to ensure one set of care plans were rolled out, and cross referenced with risk assessments.

People told us communication with the service was good and they felt listened to. Communication methods were employed by the service that were most appropriate to meeting people’s needs. This reflected in people we spoke with reporting they were always given choice and were treated with respect by staff.

The quality of the service was monitored regularly by the location manager, registered manager, and the regional director. Whilst audit systems were in place for monitoring paperwork, there were numerous documents for the registered manager to select from. This could at times cause confusion. The registered manager told us she would review all audits, compiling one that may incorporate all appropriate sections to use and evaluate the service.

A quality assurance audit was completed annually with an action plan being generated by the service. Feedback was encouraged from people, visitors and stakeholders and used to improve and make changes to the service as and where required. We found evidence of compliments and complaints that illustrated transparency in management.