Archived: South Tyneside Adult Placement Service

Updated 21 May 2016

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.

The inspection took place on 30 and 31 March 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides an adult placement service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office.

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

Before the inspection we checked information we held about the service and the provider. This included previous inspection reports and statutory notifications sent to us about events and incidents that happened at the service. A notification is information about an event which the service is required to tell us by law. We contacted the local authority commissioners for the service, the local safeguarding team and the clinical commissioning group [CCG]. We also contacted the local Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used all the information to decide what areas to focus on during the inspection.

During the visit we observed staff and carers interacting with people. We spoke to the registered manager, two link workers, five people who used the service and three carers. We also contacted two health and social care professionals via email for their views on the service.

We looked at a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. These included the care records for four people, staff training and supervision records, recruitment records for four carers and quality monitoring records.

Updated 21 May 2016

This announced inspection took place on 30 and 31 March 2016. The last inspection of this service was carried out 27 September 2013. The service met all regulations that were inspected against at that time.

South Tyneside Adult Placement Service (Shared Lives) aims to recruit carers to offer care, support and accommodation to vulnerable adults. Once recruited the service provides carers with training and support in order for them to meet the needs of the people whom they accommodate. Shared Lives supports carers by providing link workers, contact with social workers and 24 hour advice and support. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 47 carers with an additional 21 who support with short breaks.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People and carers made positive comments about the service. They described the service as being safe. One person told us, “I am safe with [carer], it’s just lovely to feel it’s my home.”

Staff had a clear understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing. They were confident any concerns would be listened to and investigated to make sure people were protected. Staff understood the process of raising a safeguarding alert. Carers were also aware of how to raise concerns and felt that the registered manager would act.

Systems were in place for recording and managing safeguarding concerns, complaints, accidents and incidents. People and carers we spoke to knew how to make a complaint. Information was available in pictorial form on how to make a complaint. At the time of the inspection the service had not received any formal complaints.

The registered manager confirmed the staff team were already employed by South Tyneside Council prior to taking up their current role. The Council’s recruitment procedures had been followed which included relevant checks. For example, checks had been carried out with the disclosing and barring service, (DBS) before they were employed to confirm whether applicants had a criminal record and were barred from working with vulnerable people.

The service had a rigorous process in place to recruit carers, which included general health checks, character checks, references, DBS checks and discussions with family members. Carers were interviewed by link workers. From the collection of information a report was developed as to the suitability of the prospective carer and presented at an independent Shared Lives panel to make a decision to recruit the person as a carer.

Staff had received regular supervisions. The registered provider had an Employee Performance Management (EPM) process in place for staff development which had taken the place of the annual appraisal. Carers received support on a monthly basis from the service, with meetings held on a regular basis to provide support and to share information from the service to the carers.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was understood by staff and carers. They also understood the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to make sure people were not restricted unnecessarily.

People’s choices were acknowledged. Each person had a range of social and leisure activities in their individual plans. One person spent time volunteering and told us, “I enjoy doing this, [carers] are going to help me do more.” People were supported to be as independent as possible, and took part in family activities such as shopping, meal preparations and keeping their rooms clean.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored and contact was made with other health care professionals when necessary. Carers helped people to lead a healthy lifestyle and supported them to health care appointments.

Individual plans and risk assessment were in place which showed people were involved in their care and set out how they wanted their support to be delivered. The service also followed the social workers plans for the person by way of support and plans for independence.

The service had systems in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way. Medication Administration Records (MAR) were up to date with no gaps or inaccuracies. MARs were sent in to the service every month to enable auditing.

We observed staff and carers with people and saw support was given in a respectful way. People were very comfortable in the presence of their carers and the staff. Genuine relationships were observed.

People, carers and staff told us the service was well run and well managed. They felt the registered manager was open, honest and approachable and the service promoted a positive culture for staff and for the people they supported. One person told us, “I have never needed to complain but if I did I would go to [registered manager].”

The registered provider had a business continuity plan in case of emergency. The plan contained contact details of respite carers who could support people in case of an emergency. Where an emergency affected the service’s office, the team would relocate to another office in the building. The registered manager also had a laptop to enable remote working.