Sanctuary Supported Living - Suffolk Domiciliary Care

Updated 21 October 2017

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 announced inspection took place on 22 September 2017 and was undertaken by one inspector. We gave the service notice of this inspection, because they provide a domiciliary care service and we needed to know that someone would be available.

We reviewed information we held about the service, such as notifications and information sent to us from other stakeholders for example the local authority and members of the public.

During our inspection we visited four people in their flats and spoke with three of these people about their experiences of the service. We also spoke with the service’s area manager, the registered manager, and two care workers. We looked at records in relation to five people’s care. We looked at records relating to the management of the service, three staff recruitment records, training, and systems for monitoring the quality of the service.

Updated 21 October 2017

Sanctuary Supported Living – Suffolk Domiciliary Care provides personal care and support to people living in their own flats in Avalon Court. On the day of our announced comprehensive inspection on 22 September 2017 there were 18 people using the personal care service. We gave the service notice of this inspection, because they provide a domiciliary care service and we needed to know that someone would be available. This service was registered in January 2016. This was their first inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Care workers were trained in how to keep people safe from abuse and the service’s policies and procedures designed to reduce the risks of people being abused, provided care workers with guidance on how to keep people safe.

People’s care records guided care workers how to minimise the risks on people’s daily living.

There were systems in place to ensure that there were care workers available to fulfil people’s planned care visits. The service had taken action to address care worker vacancies. Robust systems were in place for the recruitment of all staff working in the service.

Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

People were cared for and supported by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2015. People’s consent was sought before any care was provided and care workers acted in accordance with their wishes.

Where people required assistance with their dietary needs, there were systems in place to provide this support.

People were supported to access health care professionals, where required, to maintain good health. The service worked with other professionals involved in people’s care.

People told us that care workers treated them with respect. People’s care records guided care workers in how their privacy, dignity and independence was promoted and respected.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. They were provided with care which was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.

There was a complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to and addressed.

There was an open and empowering culture in the service. People and care workers were asked for their views of the service and these were valued and acted on.

There was a quality assurance system in place and shortfalls were addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.