Ruby-Rose Supported Living Services

Updated 26 March 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Service and service type

This service provides care and support to a person living in one ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live as independently as possible. The person’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be available to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed any notifications we had received from the service (events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about). We reviewed the last inspection report. We asked commissioners for their feedback about the service. At the time of the inspection, we had not asked the provider to complete their Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. However, we gave the provider the opportunity to share any information they wished and this was included in this inspection

During the inspection

As part of this inspection, we spent time with the person who used the service talking with them and observing support they received from staff. We spoke with the registered manager and one care worker. We reviewed a range of records. This included in the person’s care records. We looked at three staff files. We reviewed a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including accidents and incidents, medicine records, audits, staff training and checks on health and safety.

After the inspection

We spoke with the person’s relative for their feedback about the service and another care staff worker.

Updated 26 March 2020

About the service

Ruby-Rose Supported Living provides twenty-four hour care and support to one person living with a learning disability. This is a single tenancy and staff were present at all times of the day and night.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. The person using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The outcomes for the person using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. Their support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

Staff provided safe care and support. They had received training in how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to act on any safeguarding concerns. Staff had guidance of action required to mitigate any risks. There were enough staff employed and recruitment checks were completed before staff commenced their employment. Checks were completed to ensure health and safety and infection control and prevention were followed. Medicines were managed and administered safely. Whilst accidents and incidents were minimal, action was taken when concerns were identified and lessons were learnt.

Staff received ongoing training and support, checks were completed on their competency and there was a lone working policy and procedure. Ongoing assessment and monitoring ensured the person’s health needs were met effectively. The person was fully involved and supported with menu planning, shopping and cooking. The person was supported to have maximum choice and control of their life and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful. They fully involved the person in their care and support and acted upon, and respected their wishes. Independence was promoted and the person led an active and fulfilling life. They were active citizens of their community and participated in social activities, followed interest and hobbies and worked a few hours a week for which they got paid. Information had been made accessible to meet the person’s communication needs, including how to make a complaint. End of life care wishes had been considered.

There were systems and processes in place that monitored quality and safety. The registered manager regularly visited the person, supported the staff team effectively and had good oversight of the service. The registered manager provided good leadership and continued to meet their registration regulation requirements.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 4 July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.