The inspection took place on 26 and 27 September 2018. We carried out telephone interviews with relatives on 6 November 2018. The inspection was announced. We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure someone would be at the service. The service was rated good at our last inspection.This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. The service also provides care and support to people living in four ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.
Not everyone using Eden Mencap Society receives personal care; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 6 people receiving support with their personal care.
The service operates from permanent offices close to Penrith town centre.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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.’
The care service was not fully developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion.
People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.
The human and legal rights of people who used this service were not protected because staff, including the management team, did not have a good working knowledge of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The service did not have effective safeguarding systems in place.
People's finances and medicines had not always been managed safely. Where mistakes had been identified, appropriate actions had not been taken to help make sure they did not happen again.
The service did not have a robust and effective system in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.
These are breaches of the regulations.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Risk assessments and care records had not been maintained accurately and did not reflect people’s current support needs. The documents were not produced in a way that met the communication needs of the people using the service.
We have made a recommendation about communication and accessible information.
The provider had a complaints process. No one that we spoke with had ever needed to raise a complaint. However, we did see some evidence of complaints during our visit to the office. The complaints system was not well managed.
We have made a recommendation about the management of complaints.
The service operated a safe recruitment process to help make sure only suitable people were employed. There were usually enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We found that people usually had support from the same team of carers who knew them well.
Staff were provided with some training and updates. They told us that they felt well supported by the management at the service. However, we noted that there were gaps in their skills and knowledge, particularly around keeping people safe.
Staff at the service knew the people they supported very well. They could give a good account of people’s individual care and support needs.
People we spoke with during the inspection process were all happy with the support provided by the service. They all thought that people were “well looked after.”
People were supported to access health and social care professionals when needed, as well as independent advocacy services. Additionally, people were supported to access activities and employment in the local community or to attend day centres and clubs.