16 June 2014
During a routine inspection
During our inspection we looked at respecting and involving people who used the service, consent, care/support, infection control and quality assurance.
As part of our inspection we visited one of the houses where people were supported by staff from Creative Support and also spoke with people who came to head office to assist us with our inspection. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
We spoke with three people who used the service during our inspection who told us they felt treated with respect and dignity by staff at all times. People told us they felt safe and comfortable in the presence of staff. The provider had systems in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had been submitted to the local authority. We spoke with staff about their understanding of DOLS which was uncertain. We discussed this with the manager who told us this would be addressed and that further training would be arranged. This would ensure people were safeguarded as required.
Systems were in place to ensure managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. During our inspection we saw evidence of where such concerns had been addressed.
We looked at the systems in place with regards to infection control. Various cleaning protocols were in place at each tenancy and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities in order to maintain good standards of cleanliness. We found there was no regular auditing system for infection control in place. We raised this with the manager who assured us this would be introduced following our inspection.
Is the service effective?
We found people who used the service were supported to live as independent lives as possible with people having access to a range of services within the local community. People told us staff supported them with shopping, budgeting and attending appointments. Most people told us they were able to cook their own meals and one person told us they were in the process of learning how to administer medication for themselves.
There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant when required people could access additional support.
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in the creation of their support plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in support plans where required. We spoke with three people who used the service during our inspection who told us they felt involved in the support they received. One person said; 'I have been to the head office in the past and taken part in meetings. This gave me the opportunity to change anything I didn't like'.
People's needs were taken into account with the layout of each house which enabled people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments and had suitable disabled access if required.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. On the day of our inspection we observed staff spoke to people in a caring manner and were patient and understanding in respect of their varying support needs. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.
We spoke with people at the houses they lived in and also at the head office where people assisted us with our inspection. The people we consulted with spoke positively about the support they received. Comments included; 'I've been with them for three years now. I'm happy and I like it. I enjoy going out on day trips, shopping and going on holiday' and 'It's great. The staff are nice and they treat me well. I'm involved with my support as well which I like' and 'They are good to me. I feel they meet my support needs. I work at the office one day a week which I get paid for. I look forward to it'.
Is the service responsive?
The people we spoke with told us they had access to a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People told us they were supported by staff to attend appointments in the local community when required.
There was a complaints procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy but had never been given reason to. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary when required.
There were other various quality assurance systems in place. These included audits, house checks and through regular discussions during the annual support plan review. The registered manager told us that a survey was in the process of being developed, and would be sent to people who used the service once it had been created.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. We saw evidence in support plans of involvement with doctors, dentists and opticians.
There were several quality assurance systems in place. We looked at a sample of these which identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. Quality assurance systems included tenant/staff meetings and annual support plan reviews.
The staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities and told us they developed good relationships with people who used the service over time. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.