Background to this inspection
Updated
13 April 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.
This inspection took place on 21 and 22 February 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has experience of using services. The expert by experience at this inspection had experience of receiving support and of people who used supported living services and people with a learning disability.
During our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service face to face and four by telephone to gather their feedback and views of the service. We also spoke with four members of care staff, the manager, deputy manager a consultant manager and three care managers from the social work team.
Before we visited the service we checked the information we held about this location and the service provider, for example, we looked at the inspection history, safeguarding notifications and complaints. We also contacted the local authority who commissions the service.
We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. 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.
We also reviewed records including, three staff recruitment files, two medicine records, three support plans and daily records, three staff training records and other records relating to the management of the service such as audits, surveys, minutes of meetings and updated policies.
Updated
13 April 2018
The inspection took place on 21 and 22 February 2018. The inspection was announced. This is a small supported living scheme and we wanted to be sure that someone would be in when we inspected.
We last inspected Potential Supported living in November 2016, at which time it was rated good. At this inspection we rated the service as good.
This service provides care and support to seven people living in their own homes. As well as four people living in two ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’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.
The service did not have registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. However there was a deputy manager and a replacement manager was in post and was commencing their registration with us.
People who used the service were confident in the ability of staff to keep them safe. No concerns were raised from people and their relatives.
Care plans were detailed and person-centred. Each contained a one page profile that gave staff relevant information when providing care to people who used the service. ‘Person centred’ means the person receiving care is central in developing their care and their preferences are respected.
Support plans contained person centred risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures to be taken to ensure people would be protected from the risk of harm. This supported people to do the things they wanted to live their life fully.
Staff were trained in safeguarding and were able to describe types of abuse and what they could do to protect people.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely. Spot checks were carried out by the deputy manager to ensure quality and competency of staff.
Consent was documented in people’s care files and people we spoke with confirmed staff asked for their consent on a day to day basis.
People were supported to maintain their independence on a daily basis with living skills and with personal care where appropriate. They had choice and control over their own life from being supported by person centred care approaches.
People were always respected by staff and treated with kindness. We saw staff being respectful, considerate and communicating exceptionally well with people.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services.
We saw people were supported to prepare meals, eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and special dietary needs were supported.
Infection control measures were in place for staff to protect people from the risk of infection through, training, cleanliness and protective clothing where required.
Support staff told us they felt supported to carry out their role and to develop further and that the manager was supportive and always approachable.
Medicines were managed and administered safely. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with the deputy manager about how staff were trained to administer medicines and how this was monitored.
We found an effective quality assurance survey took place regularly and we looked at the results. The service delivered had been regularly reviewed through a range of internal and external audits.
We found people who used the service and their representatives were regularly asked for their views about the support through questionnaire and feedback forms.
People and their relatives were able to complain if they wished and were knowledgeable of how to complain or raise minor concerns.
The manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken.