Background to this inspection
Updated
19 August 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 checked 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.
The inspection took place on 21 July 2017 and was announced. The provider was given short notice of the visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would available.
The inspection was completed by an adult social care inspector.
Prior to the inspection we gathered and reviewed information from notifications the provider had sent to the Care Quality Commission. We also looked 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 sought feedback from Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. And we asked the local authority for their view on the service.
During our inspection we spoke with seven staff including four support workers, two team leaders and the deputy manager. We met five people who used the service and gained views about the service from three of their relatives. We observed staff interacting with people by visiting one supported living service and meeting staff and people who used the service at the provider’s day centre. This is also where the office for the supported living services was sited.
We looked at documentation relating to the management of the service and looked at three staff files. We also looked at three support plans belonging to people who used the service. We selected people’s files and staff files from all three supported living services.
Updated
19 August 2017
The inspection took place on 21 July 2017 and was announced. The provider was given short notice of our visit in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The last comprehensive inspection took place in December 2014, when the provider was rated good.
The Rotherham branch of Sense is registered to provide personal care and support to people who have sensory needs and/or people living with a learning disability. The office is situated near to Rotherham town centre. Personal care is provided to people accommodated in three supported living environments, one in the Rotherham and two in the Sheffield area. Support packages are flexible and based on individual need.
At the time of our inspection the service had 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 registered manager was on leave at the time of our inspection. We spoke with the deputy manager regarding the leadership of the service.
People were protected from the risks of abuse and staff knew how to safeguard people. Training was provided in this area to ensure staff were aware of the types of abuse, how to recognise and report it and how to keep people safe.
We found there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff told us there were always enough of them around and they worked well as a team.
People were recruited in a safe and effective way that ensured suitable people were appointed. Staff confirmed that pre-employment checks had been completed prior to them commencing employment with the service. A comprehensive induction programme took place for new starters.
People’s support plans identified any risks associated with their care and support. Risk assessments detailed any hazards and what action to take to minimise risks from occurring.
We spoke with staff and looked at records in relation to staff training and support. We found the provider was committed to providing training appropriate to the needs of people who used the service. This developed staff to be skilful in their role.
The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were involved in their care and consent was sought.
People were assisted in maintaining a healthy and balanced diet. People who had specific dietary requirements were catered for.
We spoke with staff who were dedicated to providing person centred support. Staff were pleased when people had achieved their outcomes.
The service helped people to express their views. Staff were keen to understand things from the perspective of people who used the service. Staff and management were fully committed to helping people to communicate effectively.
Staff were respectful and ensured that people’s privacy and dignity were maintained.
End of life care plans had been developed using an easy to read format. This included specific information relevant to people at this time of their life.
People’s needs were identified and individual guidelines were in place to ensure people received support which met their needs and were in line with their preferences.
People were supported to maintain social interests and enjoyed outings to various places of interest and going out for meals and on holiday.
The service had a complaints procedure and people knew what to do if they had a concern. People we spoke with and their relatives were happy with the service and did not feel the need to raise concerns at this time.
Staff felt supported by the management team and felt able to contribute to service development. Relatives also had confidence that the service was managed well.
The management team completed audits which were used to identify any actions. Actions required were placed on a service development plan and addressed in a timely way.
People who used the service, their relatives and staff were given opportunities to feedback about the service.