We carried out a review of the data available to us about Natural Breaks Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Natural Breaks Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service: People were positive about the care and support they received from Natural Breaks.
People received medicine when they should, and medicines were stored safely in people’s homes. There were some issues with one person's MAR chart as these had not always been completed appropriately in line with national guidance. However, the provider had processes in place that had identified these issues and the registered manager had taken appropriate action.
We found the service had completed mental capacity assessments as required. Decisions about people's care had been taken in their best interests when they did not have the capacity to do so.
Not all staff had completed mandatory training. The registered manager told us this would be addressed immediately.
People received person centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were aware of people's life history, and their communication needs. They used this information to develop positive and meaningful relationships with people.
Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to meet people’s needs and support people to access the community. Staff were caring and always promoted people’s dignity and independence.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe being supported by the staff, and staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or was at risk of harm.
Risks which compromised people’s health and well-being were appropriately assessed, reviewed when needed, and contained a high level of detailed information.
Safe recruitment procedures were in place. Appropriate checks were carried out on staff before they started working at the service to ensure they were suitable to work in the role.
There was a clear complaints policy for the service. Complaints we saw had been responded to appropriately.
Staff understood their role and had confidence in the manager. We were told the management team were approachable and responsive to any issues. Systems were in place to gather feedback from people.
People and their relatives were highly complimentary about the service. People told us the service was “excellent” and met people’s needs.
Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 30th December 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Natural Breaks is an organisation which provides support services to people with a range of needs such as a learning disability, mental health issue, physical disability or an acquired brain injury. The service has two strands offering both a domiciliary care service to people living in their own home and support for people to access social and leisure activities within their local community. The service is located in Liverpool and covers a large geographical area across the North West.
We last inspected this service on 13 February 2014 and found they were compliant in all areas.
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.
Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe being supported by the staff and staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or was at risk of harm. Staff told us they would not hesitate to whistle blow to the registered manager, the local authority or CQC.
Risks which compromised people’s health and well-being were appropriately assessed reviewed when needed and contained a high level of detailed information.
There was a procedure in place for recording and analysing incidents and accidents.
Rotas showed there were enough staff employed by the organisation to deliver a safe, consistent service. Each person had the required number of staff working with them to help keep them safe and access the community.
We viewed medication administration records (MAR) sheets for some people we were having their medicines administered by staff, and saw they were accurate and complete. Staff were trained in medication administration, and were subject to regular spot checks to help ensure they were competent with regards to administering medicines.
Staff were recruited safely and checks were carried out on staff before they started work at the organisation to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
Staff completed an induction as well as other training courses selected by the provider to enable them to have the skills needed to complete their role.
The registered manager and staff we spoke with were aware of their roles in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated legislation. Staff understood the need to respect people’s choices and decisions if they had the capacity to do so. Assessments had been carried out and reviewed regarding people’s individual capacity to make care decisions. Were people did not have capacity, this was documented appropriately and decisions were made in their best interest with the involvement of family members where appropriate and relevant health care professionals. This showed the provider understood and was adhering to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.This is legislation to protect and empower people who may not be able to make their own decisions.
Staff we observed delivering support were kind and compassionate when working with people. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed.
Care plans with regards to people’s preferred routines and personal preferences were well documented and plainly written to enable staff to gain a good understanding of the person they were supporting. Care plans contained a high level of person centred information. Person centred means the service was tailored around the needs of the person, and not the organisation.
We discussed complaints with the registered manager. Complaints had been responded to by the registered manager and appropriately dealt with including any changes, which needed to be implemented because of the complaint.
People told us they liked the organisation and the staff, and there was always something going on for them. We saw that people were excited about an overnight stay in Blackpool.
Quality assurance procedures were robust and identified when actions needed to be implemented to drive improvements. We saw that quality assurance procedures were highly organised and processes had been implemented from an external source to help support the service to continuously improve. We were shown these procedures by the registered manager during our inspection and how they worked.
People's needs were clearly reflected in their care plan and staff presented as having a good understanding of people's needs.
Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff had undergone training in safeguarding and they were clear in their responsibilities to report concerns.
Checks had been carried out on staff before they started working for the service. These aimed to ensure people were supported by staff who had the appropriate qualities, skills and experience they needed to carry out their roles.
Staff felt well supported and appropriately trained. Communication across the staff team was good and staff were being provided with regular supervisions and team meetings.
The provider had a system in place for monitoring the quality of the service and this included asking people who used the service for their views. People who used the service told us they would feel confident to raise any concerns or complaints about the service and we saw that when complaints had been made they had been listened to and acted upon.
We asked people if they felt confident to raise any concerns they had about their service and people told us they did, people also told us they felt safe.
People gave us good feedback about staff. People told us staff were 'Good' and 'Caring'. One person told us they felt staff were 'Really Great '.
People told us which members of staff were on their team and they told us they had support from the same small group of staff.