Archived: Progress Adult Living Service LLP

This inspection took place on 13 May 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice as the location provides domiciliary care for young people and adults with learning disabilities. The registered manager is often out supporting staff; we needed to be sure that someone would be in. At the last inspection in January 2014 the service was meeting all of the requirements within the regulations that we looked at.

At the time of this inspection, the service was providing personal care for seven young people within their own homes and respite care for young adults. The service had 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.

People were protected from abuse and harm by staff who had a good understanding and knew how to recognise and report any suspected abuse. The provider had good systems in place for reporting and investigating any safeguarding concerns. Each person had a risk assessment that detailed all of the potential risks associated with their conditions and care, with detailed guidance for staff to follow to minimise these risks and provide people with safe care.

There were enough staff to provide people with personalised care. The staff team had all been recruited using safe recruitment processes. We saw that everyone had current criminal records checks, details of their full employment history and had provided three references.

People’s medicines were managed safely. We saw that people were supported to be as independent as possible to take their own medicines. Where support was required, all processes for recording and managing medicines safely were followed.

Staff were well trained and supported to carry out their roles effectively. We saw that all staff were up to date with their essential training, and had also been given additional training tailored to meet the needs of people they were caring for, such as additional training in epilepsy and managing behaviours that challenged the service. Staff had regular supervision with their line manager and annual review of their work to make sure they were properly supported and had the opportunity to discuss their work and training needs.

People were asked for their consent to care in line with the regulations outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which requires care staff to make sure that people are treated in accordance with their wishes and ensure their freedom is protected.

People’s health and care needs were monitored and supported. People were provided with the food and drink they wanted, and were given choices over what they had by care staff. This included supporting people with specialist dietary requirements including soft food diets. We saw that people’s health was monitored and the provider had regular contact with other professionals involved in people’s care.

Staff were caring and had good relationships with the people they supported. Staff used a range of communication methods including picture cards and Makaton to make sure that people understood what care was being provided and were involved in their care. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care, such as by making sure that doors were closed, people were covered up when being washed and talking to people about what they were doing while providing this support.

People’s care was personalised to meet their individual needs. We saw that people’s care files contained detailed information about their backgrounds, personal preferences and goals for their care as well as details of their care needs and tasks to be completed.

The provider had a complaints procedure and responded to complaints following this process. We discussed the complaint since the last inspection and saw this had been investigated and responded to fully and appropriate actions had been taken following this complaint. People and their relatives were encouraged to provide their feedback about the service to care staff and the registered manager.

People, their relatives and staff were involved in the service. Relatives told us they had made suggestions about providing new types of care and ways to improve support for people, and these suggestions had been encouraged and followed up by the managers of the service. Staff were involved in a consultation to develop care and were able to put forward their views and ideas for improvement.

The provider completed regular audits of the service to make sure it provided high quality care. We saw details of spot checks, care file audits and medicines audits that looked at how care was being provided and that people were received the standard of care they required.