Archived: Supported Living Service

Supported Living Service is a domiciliary care service located in Luton. The service provides care workers to assist adults over the age of 18 years old with care in supported living accommodation. The people who use the service experience learning disabilities and/or physical disabilities to varying degrees.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service applied the principles and values consistently of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The manager monitored the quality of the service through audits and feedback received from people and relatives. Audits and checks were also in place from the providers management team to ensure best practice. However, we found that accidents and incidents were not reviewed on a regular basis. The manager confirmed that this would now be regularly audited. A safeguarding raised during the inspection was not appropriately responded to by one part of the management team.

Care plans were developed when people started using the service, risk assessments were developed for each identified risk to people`s health and wellbeing. However, we found that care plans contained conflicting information and where people’s needs had changed old guidance could still be found in the care plans. Where changes had occurred, these were not always clearly documented to show why the changes had occurred. Staff understood peoples care needs, documentation in care plans needed improving. We spoke with the manager about the issues found and they will be reviewing these issues.

People told us they felt the care and support they received was safe. Staff received training in safeguarding and they knew how to report their concerns internally and externally to safeguarding authorities.

Staff received regular training, the manager observed their practical knowledge and competencies. Staff received appropriate training to meet people’s needs.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the care provided by Supported Living Service.

People and relatives told us the manager and staff were approachable and listened to their concerns when they raised issues with them. Concerns or complaints were recorded and responded following the provider`s complaints policy.

People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People`s dignity and privacy were protected.

Care plans were developed when people started using the service, risk assessments were developed for each identified risk to people`s health and wellbeing.

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.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 15 June 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained Good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

The service provides care and support to people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum conditions who live in ‘supported living’ schemes. At the time of the inspection, 33 people were being supported within eight schemes.

There was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people from risk of possible harm and suitable equipment was in place so that people were supported safely.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff received regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided. Where people did not have capacity to consent to their care or make decisions about some aspects of their care, this had been managed in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives. People’s health and wellbeing was promoted, and they were supported to access other health and social care services when required.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. They enjoyed happy and fulfilled lives because they had been given opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people who used the service and their relatives. They acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.

The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive continuous improvements. People and staff we spoke with described the service as ‘good’.

From our observations and our conversations with people, we found that staff discussed things with people, or checked their reactions, to make sure they understood and agreed to what was happening. People told us that staff were helpful and knew them and what to do for them.

We saw that each person received an assessment of their care needs, including any risks associated with their care provision. In all the cases we looked at, we found that the care provided matched with the care required and was what people had agreed to. We found the service had completed the appropriate checks before staff began work and that the care workers employed were appropriately trained and qualified.

We saw the service had effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. These included provider and service level audits. There was an effective complaints system available and comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.