Your Ability - Slough

Updated 15 March 2019

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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because people who used the service are often out of their homes and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service which included notifications they had sent us. Notifications are sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to inform us of events relating to the service which they must inform us of by law. We looked at previous inspection reports and reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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.

During the inspection we spoke with eight people who use the service. We spoke with six members of staff including the registered manager, the director of care and support, the support services manager and three support workers. We observed staff interacting with people and supporting them to prepare meals. We looked at records relating to the management of the service including four people’s support plans and associated records. We reviewed the medicine administration records for four people and inspected three staff files including recruitment records. We checked records of accidents and incidents and looked at handover and communication documentation. We reviewed minutes of meetings and a selection of quality assurance audits and health and safety records.

Following the inspection, we requested and received feedback from the local authority commissioners and community professionals as well as the local safeguarding authority.

Updated 15 March 2019

Your Ability Slough provides care and support to people living in three 'supported living' settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support. Your Ability Slough provides a service to adults of all ages with a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or mental health conditions.

At the time of the inspection 22 people used the services provided by Your Ability Slough. However, not everyone received regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection,17 people were receiving the regulated activity.

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

People’s experience of using this service:

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff were trained and knowledgeable in how to protect and safeguard people from abuse. They understood their responsibilities to report concerns and were confident action would be taken promptly when necessary. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and assessed as competent to assist people with their medicines. Risks to people and their well-being were assessed. Plans to reduce and mitigate risks without restricting people’s freedom were in place. A robust recruitment procedure was followed to ensure as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people safely. Staff had been trained in infection control and used personal protective equipment appropriately. Accidents and incidents were reported, investigated and monitored to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

People received effective support from staff who were trained and had demonstrated the necessary skills to fulfil their role. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and other managers. They were provided with regular supervision meetings as well as opportunities to meet as a team. People were supported to plan and prepare their meals. Staff encouraged people to think about healthy eating options. People’s healthcare needs were monitored; staff sought advice promptly from healthcare professionals when necessary and called emergency services when required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us staff were kind and patient. Staff had formed good relationships with people, they knew their individual needs well and demonstrated understanding. Staff protected people’s privacy and treated people with respect. People and when appropriate relatives had been involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff worked hard to encourage people to build and maintain as much independence as they were able to.

The service was responsive to people’s individual needs and took account of their personal preferences in relation to culture, beliefs and protected characteristics. Staff knew people very well and paid attention to following their preferred routines. Individual support plans were person-centred and detailed the diverse needs of each person. The service provided flexible support to accommodate people’s individual wishes and preferred routines. Complaints were recorded and managed in accordance with the provider’s policy; people were aware of how to raise concerns and who to speak to. The Accessible Information Standard was being met. Staff employed a variety of communication methods to ensure people were able to understand information.

The service was well-led, the registered manager and senior managers provided strong leadership. Staff felt supported in their roles and could seek advice when necessary. Records were relevant, complete and reviewed regularly to reflect current information.There was an open and honest culture which supported person-centred and individualised care and support. Staff had received training on and were clear about the values of the service. Feedback was sought from people and stakeholders which was used to monitor the quality of the service. Quality assurance audits were conducted and used to make improvements.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. The last inspection report was published on 4 August 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection to confirm that this service remained Good.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor any information we receive about the service to ensure care and support remains safe and of good quality. We will return to re-inspect in line with our inspection timescales for good services. However, we may return sooner if any information of concern is received.