Archived: Essential Futures Limited

Updated 23 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

This was the first inspection for this location.

The inspection visit to the office took place on 4 August 2016 and was announced. We told the provider in advance we were visiting, so they had time to arrange for us to speak with people who used the service. The inspection was conducted by one inspector.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at information received from local authority commissioners. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services for people and fund the care provided. We also looked at statutory notifications sent to us by the service. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.

A provider information return (PIR) was not requested before the inspection. We gave the registered manager the opportunity during the visit to tell us what the home did well and what areas could be developed.

During our inspection visit, we spoke with four people who received care and support in their own homes. With people’s agreement, we spent time observing interactions between people and staff. We spoke with three relatives by telephone. We also spoke with the registered manager, the operational manager and five care staff.

We reviewed five people’s care plans, to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We looked at other records related to people’s care and how the service operated to check how the provider gathered information to improve the service. This included medicine records, staff recruitment records, the provider’s quality assurance audits and records of complaints.

Updated 23 September 2016

This inspection took place on 4 August 2016 and was announced.

Essential Futures provides domiciliary care to younger adults with a learning disability or with mental health difficulties, in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 22 people were being supported.

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.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them, and we saw people were comfortable with staff. Relatives were also confident people were safe. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and were supported by the provider who acted on concerns raised and ensured staff followed safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified, minimised and flexed towards individual needs so people could be supported in the least restrictive way possible and build their independence.

People were supported with their medicines by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines safely. People told us their medicines were given in a timely way and as prescribed. Checks were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs effectively. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability to support people who lived independently. Staff told us they had not been able to work until these checks had been completed.

People told us staff asked for consent before providing them with support. People were able to make their own decisions and staff respected their right to do so. Staff and the registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People and relatives told us staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. We observed this in interactions between people, and records confirmed how people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. For example, they were supported to maintain any activities, interests and relationships that were important to them.

People had access to health professionals when needed and care records showed support provided was in line with what had been recommended. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver personalised care and gave staff information about people’s communication, their likes, dislikes and preferences. People were involved in how their care and support was delivered and, where people wanted this, staff worked with relatives or advocates to ensure people were supported effectively.

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager. They felt these would be listened to and responded to effectively and in a timely way. Staff told us the management team were approachable and responsive to their ideas and suggestions. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the support provided, and the provider was also developing new systems, which they hoped would be more effective in obtaining the views and experiences of people using the service.