Hamelin Trust Community Support Service

Updated 13 July 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 2 and 3 May 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a service to people in the community and we needed to be sure the right staff would be available to answer our questions.

This inspection consisted of one inspector and one expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience had experience of using, and caring for family members who used, a variety of health and social care services. They spoke to nine relatives on the telephone to find out their views about the service their relatives received. Most of the people who used the service had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate their views.

During our visit, we met with the Acting Manager for the Outreach service, the Deputy Director of Operations and The Director of Operations. We also met with the manager of the U Matter 2 service and three care staff. The registered manager was not at the service on the day of the inspection so we spoke with them by telephone after our visit. We met a person who used the service for a coffee at a local café. The staff member who supported them were with us for part of this meeting.

We reviewed all the information we had available about the service including notifications sent to us by the registered manager. This is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a form completed by the registered manager to evidence how they are providing care and any improvements they plan to make.

We also sent out questionnaires to people who use the service and staff about their experience of the agency. We had three responses from people who used the service, three from relatives and three responses from community professionals. We also looked at information sent to us from others, including family members and the local authority.

We looked at three care records for people who used the service. We reviewed three staff recruitment files and training records. We also looked at further records relating to the management of the service, including quality audits, to ensure robust quality monitoring systems were in place. We used this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection.

Updated 13 July 2018

Hamelin Trust Community Support Service is focused on supporting families to continue caring for their relatives at home. It primarily provides personal care to young adults and children living at homes with their families. The support usually involves supporting people to access the local community. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people with learning or physical disabilities using this part of the service.

There is also a smaller project attached to the service, called U Matter 2, which provides holistic support to families caring for relatives at home. The service is mainly provided in the person’s home and involves supporting the whole family. At the time of our inspection there were approximately seven people receiving personal care through this project. There were other people receiving support through U Matter 2 who did not require personal care, for example who received advice from the service. We did not inspect the support provided to these people.

At our last inspection we rated the service as good overall. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

At our last inspection we found that although people received good care, checks on the quality of the service were not working effectively and so we rated well-led as requires improvement. At this inspection we found the checks had improved, though the timetable for internal audits did sometimes slip. However, senior staff supervised the service closely on a daily basis so concerns were picked up promptly. There was now an external consultant who carried out independent checks and highlighted concerns and areas of development. Any actions from checks and audits were dealt with openly and effectively.

The manager promoted a positive culture where people and their families were central to the service. People and their families were encouraged to provide input and feedback into the service and their views or concerns were listened to fully. Support was flexibly tailored around individual needs and people achieved good outcomes. People took part in a wide array of stimulating activities of their choice.

Staff managed risk well at the service and developed practical solutions to ensure people were safe. There were enough safely recruited staff to provide a flexible and responsive service. Staff had the necessary skills to administer medicine safely and prevent the spread of infection.

Staff were highly motivated and well supported. They received training and guidance to enable them to support people in line with their needs. Staff worked well with families and other professionals to meet people’s nutritional and health needs.

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. Guidance to staff promoted people’s right to choice. However, care plans did not always distinguish between the different legal responsibilities when caring for children, young adults and adults.

Staff provided caring support and developed positive relationships with people and families. People were supported by a small and consistent staff team who knew them exceptionally well. Support to family carers was a key role and staff communicated well with them. Staff were skilled at communicating with people and finding out what their views were about their care.

The U Matter 2 project had been developed in response to demand from the local community and provided responsive and caring support. The development of the service reflected the innovative culture in the service. The flexible nature of the service had raised some concerns but these were being dealt with effectively by the manager to ensure people received safe and caring support.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.