Independent Living Alternatives

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.

The inspection took place on 4 and 5 April 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available. The inspection visit was carried out by two inspectors and an 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 service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also looked at information CQC held about the service on our database including complaints, safeguarding, whistleblowing and notifications of incidents.

As part of the inspection process we spoke with eight people using the service and three relatives of people using the service. We spoke with five personal assistants either in person or on the phone. We spoke with the registered manager and the administrator. We looked at six people’s care files records and four staff files. We looked at the recruitment records for five staff. We viewed policies and procedures, training and supervision information, accidents, incidents, complaints, quality assurance, safeguarding records and records related to the running of the service.

Updated 13 July 2018

This announced inspection was carried out on 4 and 5 April 2018. Independent Living Alternatives is registered as a domiciliary care agency and is registered to provide personal care for people in their own homes. The agency provides staff (personal assistants and volunteers) to people who have a physical disability.

At the time of this inspection Independent Living Alternatives employed 71 personal assistants and 8 volunteers who were providing support to 32 people in their own homes. The volunteers provided support in exchange for accommodation. In addition, Independent Living Alternatives facilitates the recruitment of personal assistants for people who employed their own personal assistants.

People using the services of this agency managed their own personal assistants and their own care. The ability to manage this was a prerequisite for using this agency. This inspection report covers all the services provided by Independent Living Alternatives.

We previously inspected the service on 12 December 2016. There had been a breach of regulation as the service was not following safe practices in recruiting staff. At this inspection we found the agency had improved their recruitment practice and staff were recruited safely to minimise the risk of unsuitable people being employed. A second breach of regulation at the previous inspection was due to the registered manager not notifying CQC of incidents which is a legal requirement. The registered manager told us they were now fully aware of what they needed to report to CQC. At this inspection we found all regulations were being met.

A registered manager was in post at the time of this inspection. 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.

Independent Living Alternatives is different to other domiciliary care agencies. The people using the service choose their own personal assistants from those recruited by the agency and people manage their own care including the training of their personal assistants.

Each person using the service had a risk assessment in order to keep them safe while respecting their right to take risks. Some people had a written care plan called a personal profile and others did not as they preferred to train and direct their personal assistants without a written plan. Each person had an annual review with the registered manger to seek their views of the service and see if their needs were being met.

Each person had between one and six personal assistants in their care team. The agency was able to supply extra staff in an emergency as they employed casual workers to cover sickness and holidays of personal assistants.

People were responsible for their own medicines management and they trained their personal assistants to help them with medicines and to use mobility and medical equipment.

Staff felt they had enough training and support to carry out their roles.

The service tried to match people to personal assistants who would relate to and respect their individual lifestyle. People told us they were happy with the service provided.

We saw concerns and complaints were dealt with appropriately by the provider.

There was a management committee made up of people using the service and the registered manager reported on how the service was running to the management committee. This was an effective way of monitoring the quality of the service and addressing any improvements needed.

We have made one recommendation regarding training in safe moving and handling.