We carried out a review of the data available to us about Person Centred Care Homes 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 Person Centred Care Homes, you can give feedback on this service.
Person Centred Care Homes Supported Living is a supported living service. It provides care and support to adults with learning disabilities and autism living in their own flats within a purpose-built ‘supported living’ scheme, so that they can live in their own homes as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for supported living, and so this announced inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.
CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, meaning help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. There were eight people using the service in this respect.
The care service has been 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 with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At our last inspection in May 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. However, we found people’s medicine administration records were not always accurately maintained. Where people had medicines prescribed only-as-needed, we found there was often no associated guidance for staff on when the medicine was to be offered. These factors put people at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed and therefore of receiving an unsafe service. The management team provided a prompt action plan addressing these matters. We have therefore made a recommendation around safe medicines support.
People using the service had complex needs which meant we could not easily obtain their views. However, there was much evidence available which demonstrated that the service had supported them to move into the scheme successfully and was providing them with individualised care that was meeting their needs. People’s relatives praised the service. “It’s a very good service,” was a typical comment. There was also positive feedback from involved community professionals, one describing the service as excellent. We found the service worked in partnership with community professionals and people’s relatives.
People’s needs and choices had been comprehensively assessed, so that care and support could be delivered in line with standards to achieve effective outcomes. There was a significant focus on how people communicated, their interests and routines, and exploration of any behaviours that challenged services. The information was acquired through meeting the person and any representatives such as relatives, social workers and other care providers. This helped to set up a tailor-made service for each person moving into the scheme.
We found people received personalised care and support that was responsive to their needs and routines. The service empowered people and their relatives to express their views and make decisions about their care and support. Concerns and suggestions were listened to and acted on.
Staff received training and support to meet people's individual needs. The registered manager worked closely with staff as part of this process. We found staff were aware of people's specific needs and preferences, and how to respond appropriately.
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.
The service ensured people's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted. There were positive relationships between people and members of staff. People’s autonomy and independence was valued. The service supported people to maintain relationships that mattered to them and to follow their interests.
The service provided support for people to maintain good health and to eat a diet which reflected their nutritional needs and cultural backgrounds. The service protected people through infection control procedures.
There were enough staff working at the service to keep people safe and meet their needs. Records showed the service operated safe staff recruitment practices.
Risks were identified and minimised in respect of each person’s care and support. Where incidents occurred, they were reviewed to see what could be learnt about how to holistically work with that person to achieve better outcomes for them.
The registered manager was well informed about the service and had a hands-on approach to it. The service promoted a positive and inclusive culture that aimed to achieve good outcomes for people.
Person Centred Care Homes Supported Living is registered to provide personal care to people living with learning difficulties and mental health. The service currently provides 24 hour care to one person living in their own home.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
Relatives told us that they felt their relative was safe within at the service and well supported by staff. We saw positive and friendly interactions between staff and people.
Staff understood people’s individual needs in relation to their care. People were treated with dignity and respect.
Procedures relating to safeguarding people from harm were in place and staff understood what to do and who to report it to if people were at risk of harm.
Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and were aware of the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Care plans were person centred and reflected individual’s preferences. Relatives were involved in planning care and had input into review meetings.
People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Medicines were administered safely and on time.
Staff training was updated regularly and monitored by the manager. Staff received specialist training on working with people living with autism and learning difficulties. Staff had regular supervision that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Staff were aware of people’s dietary routine and their likes and dislikes.
There was a complaints procedure as well as an accident and incident reporting. Where the need for improvements was identified, the manager used this as an opportunity for learning and to improve care practices where necessary.
There were no audits completed specific to the supported living service. However, these were being planned.
There was an open atmosphere within the service. The management encouraged a culture of learning and staff development