Archived: The Good Days Project

Our inspection was discussed and arranged with the registered manager two days in advance. This was to ensure we had time to contact the families of people who used the service, contact staff who worked at the service and speak with the registered manager.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe and had received training in safeguarding and whistle blowing.

Staff had a good understanding of the procedures for the safe administration of medicines and had completed formal training in this.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received care and support at the frequency they had agreed to.

Staff recruitment policies and procedures helped to keep people safe. This was because thorough checks were completed for all staff before they were offered a post at the service.

Staff were enthusiastic and keen to do a good job, but this was being soured slightly for some staff by their perception of a lack of communication between management and the team.

The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions for themselves.

Staff spoke very positively about the training they had completed and said this had helped them to become more confident in their role.

Relatives told us the support workers were, “Kind,” “Patient” and “Caring.”

People's care plans contained consistent up to date information about their care and support, including risk assessments and action plans. These were regularly reviewed and updated in line with the person's changing needs.

People felt able to tell staff if there was something they were not happy with. We saw there were systems in place to manage complaints.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to

During our inspection we found that some people who used the service had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate their views and experiences to us. These individuals were reliant on staff to meet their physical, emotional and social needs. Due to this we spoke with the relatives of the people who used the service to help us understand how people's needs were supported.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Relatives of people who used the service told us that they were happy with the care and support their relative received at the Good Days Project. One person told us, 'They [care workers] are friendly and polite. The Good days staff are one of the best staff, they are friendly and helpful [with our family member] and with us too.'

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Relatives of the people who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support their relatives received at The Good Days Project. One relative explained that the staff met the needs of their relative's personal care for example, bathing and dressing and they also asked where they would like to go out to.

The provider had suitable arrangements in place to ensure that people who used the service were safeguarded against the risk of abuse. Relatives we spoke with said that they felt that their family member was safe and supported by the staff.

The provider had a satisfactory recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were appropriately employed.

The provider had a system in place to deal with comments and complaints. People who used the service could be confident that their comments and complaints were listened to.