We carried out a review of the data available to us about Community Support Service 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 Community Support Service, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection on 25 February 2016 we rated the service good. At this announced inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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 supported by staff who knew about safeguarding and its reporting processes. Risk assessments were in place as guidance for staff to support and monitor people’s assessed risks. People’s care records were held securely to ensure confidentiality. People had equipment in place to help staff assist them to receive safe care and support.
Staff had been recruited safely prior to working at the service. People’s needs were met as there were enough staff with the right skills and knowledge. Staff were trained to meet people’s care and support needs. People’s medicines were administered as prescribed and managed safely. Systems were in place to maintain infection prevention and control. Actions were taken to learn any lessons when things did not go as planned.
People were supported with their eating and drinking to promote their well-being. People received a caring service by staff who knew them well. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained by staff.
People were involved in their care decisions and staff promoted people’s independence as far as practicable. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
Staff supported people to access external healthcare services. Staff worked with other organisations to help ensure that people's care was coordinated.
Activities were in place to support people’s hobbies, interests and well-being. To promote people’s social inclusion, staff supported people with their links and trips out to the local community.
Compliments were received about the service and people were aware of how to make a complaint or raise a concern.
The registered manager led by example and encouraged an open and honest culture within their staff team. Audit and governance systems were in place to identify and drive forward any improvements required. The registered manager and their staff team worked together with other organisations to ensure people’s well-being.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 25, 26 and 29 February 2016 and was announced.
The service had a registered manager. 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. The provider had appointed a new manager but they had not yet taken up their position.
A robust recruitment procedure was in place and this had been adhered to. This helped ensure that staff were only recruited after all the required checks had been completed. People were cared for by a sufficient number of staff who were qualified to meet their needs.
Staff had been trained in medicines administration and they had been deemed competent to undertake this role. Safe medicines administration practice was adhered to.
Staff had received regular training and updates and were confident in their understanding of protecting people from harm. This included the identification of concerns and who these could be reported to including the registered manager and the local safe guarding authority.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Not all staff had been trained in this subject and some lacked any awareness of this Act. This put those younger people who were included in this legislation at risk of being provided with care that did not follow relevant guidance.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any applications had been or needed to be submitted to the appropriate authorities. No person using the service had been identified as lacking mental capacity and therefore no applications were required to be submitted to the court of protection.
People’s privacy, dignity and independence was supported by staff who showed compassion. Risk assessments were in place and staff followed these. This was for subjects such as supporting people out in the community, behaviours which could challenge others and medicines administration. Checks were in place to support people with their safety.
An in-depth assessment process was in place to help ensure that people received the care they wanted. People were involved in the process to determine their care needs with family members or health care professionals support.
People were supported to see or be seen by a wide range of health care professionals including a speech and language therapist, their GP or physiotherapist.
People were supported, when required, to eat and drink sufficient quantities People could choose to be as independent as they wanted with their eating and drinking.
Staff were provided with regular support, mentoring and training for their roles. This was through an effective programme of planned supervision and appraisals.
People were provided with information, guidance and support including alternative formats such as easy read or picture cards on how to report any concerns, compliments or suggestions for improvement. The provider was proactive in identifying any concerns before they became a complaint.
Audit and quality assurance procedures were in place and these were proactive and effective. The provider had from records viewed notified the CQC of events that they are required, by law, to do so.
Relatives we spoke with were very positive about the quality of care and support their family member received. One person we spoke with told us: 'The care worker treats my daughter well. They are nice and make her feel special'. Children and young people's support needs were met by members of staff who were skilled and experienced.
Records we looked at provided clear guidance to staff about each child or young person's care and support needs. Care plans we were reviewed regularly.
The service sought feedback from young people and their family members about the quality of the service they received.
One parent we spoke with told us, "It's a fantastic service and a relief for me." Another said, "It's brilliant. We regularly have the same person and all the information is private and confidential."
The parents of four young people told us there were care plans in their home and that these were reviewed. However we noted that two of the four care plans we looked at had not been reviewed yearly, which meant that the changes in young people's needs or condition were not reflected in their care plans.