The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Religious Services Supported Living North

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit G2, Morton Park Way, Darlington, County Durham, DL1 4PJ (01325) 749219

Provided and run by:
Saint John of God Hospitaller Services

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

5th October 2015

During a routine inspection

Religious Services Supported Living North is registered to provide personal care to retired clergy of the Jesuit community living at St Wilfred’s presbytery in Preston.

We completed the announced inspection from 5th October to 8th October 2015 in order to have the opportunity to visit both the registered office location in Darlington and where the service was being provided in Preston. We met with five people who used the service although we did not carry out in-depth discussions due to the communication difficulties of some of the people who used the service and the fact we were told some people wanted their privacy.

The service had a registered manager who was based at the location’s registered address in Darlington. There was also a service manager who managed the service on a day to day basis in Preston. 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.

Currently a service manager oversees the domiciliary care service provided at St Wilfred’s and the provider stated they were considering making this person the registered manager as they had day to day oversight of the service. However we saw that communication between the registered manager and the service manager was regular and supportive.

People were protected by the service’s approach to safeguarding and whistle blowing. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures, could describe what they would do if they thought somebody was being mistreated and said that management listened and acted on staff feedback.

The service had health and safety related procedures, including systems for reporting and recording accidents and incidents. The care records we looked at included risk assessments, which had been completed to identify any risks associated with delivering the person’s care.

Staff were supported to work in a safe manner with training in relation to dealing with emergencies and having the appropriate equipment to carry out their roles. We saw that staff were well trained and supported to deliver care and support to the people using the service and we witnessed caring and positive interactions by the staff team on duty. We saw the service was very caring and focused on providing people with a good service.

The staff undertook the management of medicines safely and in line with expectations.

We saw complaints and concerns were managed effectively by the service and the wider presbytery community to ensure they were addressed quickly and further reported where this was required.

Staff were able to describe how they worked to maintained people’s independence, privacy and dignity. We also saw that in this religious community, the staff and service were highly respectful of people’s spiritual needs and supported people at all times to ensure these needs were met.

People’s care records showed that their needs had been assessed and planned in a person centred way. We saw people and the wider presbytery community were involved in people’s plan of care if this was appropriate.

The service manager and staff we spoke with told us they had attended training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. MCA is legislation to protect and empower people who may not be able to make their own decisions, particularly about their health care, welfare or finances.

The service manager and registered manager had systems to ensure staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported.

The service had a robust quality assurance programme in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service and we saw that the registered manager undertook robust visits. The service had a service improvement plan where clear actions for improvements were identified and monitored.

9 July and 5 August 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. They visited the registered office of Religious Services Supported Living North, to speak with the registered manager, a member of the human resources staff and to view records. They also visited the people who used the service being provided at St Walburge's Presbytery. There we spent time talking to five people who used the service and the community representative (who is classed as people's next of kin within the community), talking with the service manager and three care staff, looking at records and observing the care and support people received.

The focus of the inspection was to look at the relevant outcome areas and regulations, and to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Staff records contained the required information and evidenced that staff had been through a thorough recruitment process. This meant the provider could demonstrate that the staff employed to work at the service were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people who used the service.

All five people who used the service told us that they felt safe and able to raise concerns if they needed to. One person commented 'I've not had any disappointments', while another said 'I could go to them immediately and they'd sort it out for me.' Procedures were in place to guide staff on the actions they needed to take if they suspected abuse. The staff we spoke with had received safeguarding training and were aware of their reporting responsibilities. Staff also confirmed that they could obtain appropriate support and advice whenever they needed it.

All incidents and accidents were analysed on a monthly basis and shared with the registered manager, the service improvement manager and the health and safety manager. Monthly statistics were produced, with trends or areas of concern being identified and acted upon. The incident and accident monitoring records we looked at provided clear information about the actions that had been taken to reduce risk, both on an individual and service level where appropriate.

Is the service effective?

The people we spoke with felt that they were involved in daily decisions about their care and support by staff. People also told us that they were satisfied with the service and happy with their care. During our visit we saw that the care described in people's records was being delivered by staff.

Is the service caring?

During our visit we saw staff treating people with respect and in kind and caring ways. For example, speaking quietly and politely with people, responding promptly to requests for assistance and respecting people's privacy when they were spending time in their own rooms. People said that staff were available if they needed them and provided support in a kind and caring manner. Comments made to us about people's care and support included 'They are very generous, concerned and thoughtful' and 'The staff are very concerned about your needs.' The staff we spoke with knew the people they were caring for well and were able to describe people's individual needs to us.

Is the service responsive?

The records we looked at contained individual information about each person and the care and support they needed. The information was detailed and included personalised information about people's preferences, to help staff provide individualised care. Care plans and risk assessments had been completed and reviewed, to ensure that they were up to date and accurately reflected people's needs. We saw that important things, such as weight, falls and skin integrity were being monitored, with appropriate actions being taken if risks were identified.

Is the service well-led?

People who used the service and their representative told us that they were satisfied with their service. People also felt that service was well run. Comments included '(The service manager) is strong and reliable and always there' and 'I think they make a good job of it and are willing to listen.' People were familiar with local management and felt that they were accessible and responsive. However, one person commented that the wider organisational management felt 'a bit remote.' Staff said that they felt the service was well run and were happy with the quality of care people received.

A system of quality checks and audits was in place, to monitor the service and identify improvements that were needed. We were shown examples of changes that were being made to improve the service. For example, a new care planning system and the records of local monitoring systems that had been put in place. Meetings were also held regularly with the religious community leaders, to help ensure that their views were taken into account.