This inspection took place on the 11 April 2018 and was announced.Adolphus Care provides support to people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. The service supports people living in six ‘supported living’ settings so people can be as independent as possible. People’s care and housing were provided under separate contractual agreements. Hibiscus Properties Limited provided the housing and maintenance and Adolphus Care provided the care and support to people using the service. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.
Not everyone using Adolphus Care received a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ and help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people do receive this service, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection only one person was receiving support with a regulated activity, but we also looked at the wider social care provision at the service.
At our last inspection in April 2016 we rated the service good overall but requires improvement in Well Led because a registered manager was not in post. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good, with the key question ‘Is the service Well Led?’ also being rated good, as although the previous registered manager had left the service in January 2018, the current manager was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. 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.
During the inspection we found there was not a registered manager in post but the manager had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager.
The provider had procedures in place to protect people from abuse. Support workers we spoke with knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. People had risk assessments and management plans in place to minimise risks and incidents were recorded appropriately.
Support workers had up to date relevant training, supervision and annual appraisals to develop the necessary skills to support people using the service. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure staff were suitable to work with people using the service.
Medicines were managed safely and support workers had appropriate training and competency assessments.
Support workers had completed training in infection control and used appropriate protective equipment so they could reduce infections and cross contamination.
People’s needs were assessed prior to moving to the service. Dietary and health needs were assessed and recorded so these could be met.
Care plans provided appropriate information to meet people's day-to-day health needs and people were supported to access healthcare services appropriately.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and support workers were responsive to individual needs and preferences. However the provider had not specifically discussed end of life wishes with people, but agreed to do so as part of future care planning.
We observed people were treated with respect, were involved in planning their care through one to one sessions and could make day to day decisions. Care plans contained the required information to give support workers guidelines to care for people in their preferred manner.
There was a complaints procedure in place, and people told us they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.
Feedback indicated the manager fostered an open culture and positive communication. People using the service and support workers told us the manager was available and listened to them.
The service had systems in place to monitor, manage and improve service delivery to improve the care and support provided to people.