iMap Centre Limited

Updated 6 April 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 checked 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 the 6 and 8 February 2018.

The inspection was announced. We gave the service 2 days notice of the inspection site visit because some of the people using it could not consent to a home visit from an inspector, which meant that we had to arrange for a ‘best interests’ decision about this and discuss with staff and relatives.

We visited the office location on6 February 2018 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection we gathered and reviewed information about the service from notification, complaints and complaints.

We also used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke to three relatives throughout the inspection process to ascertain their views on the service provided. We also spoke to representatives of the local authority who commissioned the placements.

We had the opportunity to speak with the manager, the senior support worker and 4 members of staff,

We were not able to speak with people who used the service but we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at records relating to the support two people received such as support plans, risk assessments , daily logs and medication records. We also looked at records relevant to the overall management of the service. This included 4 staff files, training records, accidents and incident reports, safeguarding investigations, complaints, and quality audits.

Updated 6 April 2018

This inspection took place on the 6 and 8 February 2018 and was announced.

This service provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live 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.

The service supports some people on a 24 hour basis. Others require help with developing skills in a transition towards more independent living. We did not cover this in our inspection as those people did not receive ‘personal care’. The people we visited could not communicate their views to us so we observed how staff supported and spoke with them.

There was a manager in post who had applied to the Commission for registration. 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.

Staff were recruited safely and trained to meet people’s individual needs. People were only supported by staff known to them and competent to meet their needs. There were enough staff assigned to provide support and ensure that people's needs were met.

Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act [2005] and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] .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 but we made a recommendation in regards to recording to ensure that it met the requirements of the MCA.

People had a support plan that provided staff with direction and guidance about how to meet individual needs and wishes. These care plans were regularly reviewed and any changes in people’s needs were communicated to staff.

Comprehensive assessments were carried out to identify any risks or potential risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included any environmental risks in people’s homes, risks in the community and any risks in relation to the health and welfare.

Where staff were responsible for supporting medicine administration this was done safely. Staff ensured that people had enough to eat and drink and maintained a healthy diet.

People were supported to live a full and active life, offered choice. There were safeguards in place to support people to experience a range of activities.

There was a complaints process in place in a range of different formats. Relatives knew how to raise concerns and make complaints and told is that they had accessed this. We looked at records that demonstrated the complaints procedure had been followed.

There was a management structure within the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. There was a positive culture within the service and the management team provided leadership and led by example.

There were quality assurances systems in place to identified and address areas of improvement. Safeguarding matters had been investigated but CQC had not been notified of the occurrence. The manager and senior support worker were visible in the service.