Archived: Three C's Support

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service said they felt safe and that staff treated them well. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work. Safeguarding adults procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported from abuse. Appropriate procedures were in place to support people where risks to their health and welfare had been identified. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. People’s medicines were managed appropriately and people received their medicines as prescribed by healthcare professionals.

Staff had completed training specific to the needs of people using the service and they received regular supervision and an annual appraisal of their work performance. The registered manager demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted according to this legislation. People were provided with sufficient amounts of nutritional food and drink to meet their needs and they had access to a GP and other healthcare professionals when needed them.

People were provided with appropriate information about the service. This ensured they were aware of the standard of care they should expect. People and their relatives, where appropriate, had been involved in planning for their care needs. People’s diverse needs and independence were supported and respected, and there was a range of activities for them to partake in if they wished to. There was a complaints procedure in place in a format that people could understand. People said they were confident their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

The provider recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service provided to people. People were enabled to express their views and opinions about the service. Staff said they enjoyed working at the service and they received good support from the registered manager. There was an out of hours on call system in operation that ensured management support and advice was always available when staff needed it.

At our inspection on 24 January 2014 we found the provider was meeting this essential standard. Since out last inspection the provider had checked the formal qualifications of each new employee where relevant, and copies of their certificates were on record.

We did not speak to people using the service as part of this inspection because of the nature of the compliance actions we were following up.

We observed staff being friendly and respectful towards people using the service and providing support that met individuals' needs and enabled them to exercise choice and control over their lives. Many people we visited were proactive in communicating to staff what they liked and didn't like, and what they wanted to do, for example about going out or seeing a friend or family.

We found people experienced care and support that met their needs and that staff acted in accordance with their wishes. The provider was taking steps to protect people from the risk of abuse and had implemented a formal audit and reporting system to monitor the quality of service people received. The provider had completed most pre-employment checks when recruiting new staff; however checks had not been completed to ensure staff had the qualifications necessary for the work to be performed.

We also looked at the results of a survey completed in June 2012 in a group of supported living houses in Redbridge to gain people's views and gather evidence of their experience of the service. Most people using the service had taken part in the survey and the results showed a high level of satisfaction. For example, most respondents were happy about: the support they received and working with their key worker; person centred meetings; how the provider worked with their friends and family; and the information they received about their support, planning their support and social inclusion. Most respondents had enough support with trips out, leisure, friendships, and things outside the home such as appointments and going to the bank.

We found the provider was respecting and involving people who use services. It was taking steps to secure their care and welfare; to safeguard them from abuse; and to ensure their needs were met by competent staff. The provider had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service it provided.