Archived: Engage Support Manchester

Updated 14 September 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.

The inspection took place on 19 and 20 June 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a supported living service for younger adults who are often out during the day, and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience was a person who had experience of interacting with people with learning disabilities and autism.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information in the PIR, along with other information that we held about the service such as notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We contacted Manchester City Council commissioning and safeguarding teams for information they held about the service. We also contacted Manchester Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an organisation responsible for ensuring the voice of users of health and social care services are heard by those commissioning, delivering and regulating services. No issues were raised by these organisations.

During our site visit, we spoke with three people in their own homes and nine staff; these included the registered manager, the managing director, a team leader, one senior support worker and two support workers. Since people were cared for in a supported living setting, we were able to observe the way they were supported in their homes. We also looked at records relating to the service, including two care records, six staff recruitment files, medication administration records (MAR), policies and procedures and quality assurance records.

Updated 14 September 2017

We inspected Engage Support Manchester (Engage Support) on 19 and 20 June 2017 and this inspection was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice because the location provided supported living services for younger adults who were often out during the day, and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Engage Support provides care and support to young people over the age of 13 and adults who have a diagnosis of autism, a learning disability, or a developmental impairment. The service provides flexible care and support packages with the additional provision of clinical support to assist direct care teams. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting eight people.

This was the service's first inspection since registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2016. There was a manager in post who had been registered with CQC since September 2016. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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.

People told us they were safely supported by Engage Support Manchester. We observed that people were settled and comfortable with the support staff and in their environment. There was a system for reporting incidents and accidents, including safeguarding, that occurred at the service. We saw these were recorded and actioned in a timely manner. This meant the service had appropriate measures in place to ensure people were kept safe and their health and well-being was protected.

People supported by the service had personal emergency evacuation plans in place. At this inspection we noted evacuation plans were kept in electronic format only which meant they were not easily accessible to staff and emergency services. We suggested that these important documents were printed and kept near exits people’s homes. Environmental checks were carried out regularly to ensure both the internal and external environments in which the service was provided was safe and fit for purpose.

Staffing levels were planned according to people’s dependency levels and any activities where people needed additional support to join in. This meant that people were not put at risk due to inadequate staffing levels. Recruitment processes in place were robust and people using the service were encouraged where appropriate to participate in the process. This helped to ensure staff employed were suitable for the role.

People’s care plans contained relevant risk assessments which should help staff protect people from risks identified and support them safely.

People told us they were supported to take their medicines safely. Care records documented how people were to be supported with medicines and what medication they were currently taking. This meant the service had systems in place to ensure people received their medicines in a safe manner.

People told us support staff were effective and well trained, and always consulted them prior to assisting them. The registered manager and staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding and knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and we saw there was a policy in place to guide practice. There was sufficient evidence in people’s care plans to demonstrate consent to care had been sought appropriately.

Staff had a good induction and mandatory training and were able access additional training as required. This should help to ensure that staff were competent to undertake their roles. From records we saw that staff were supported in their roles through regular supervisions referred to as job consultations. This helped to ensure staff received adequate professional development to help them provide effective care and support to people.

People were supported to plan and prepare their own meals. This demonstrated the service’s commitment to encouraging healthy nutrition and supporting people’s independence and choice. From care records, we saw that people were supported to access health care professionals such as GPs and dentists and attend medical appointments. This meant the service had systems in place to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met as and when required.

People told us staff were kind and caring. We observed positive and caring interactions between people and the staff supporting them. Staff demonstrated that they knew the people they supported and could describe their preferences, interests and aspirations.

People had been involved in making decisions about the support they received. Care records we reviewed confirmed this. This meant that people and their relatives, where appropriate, were included in making decisions about the support provided.

People were encouraged to develop and maintain their independence for example in the preparation of their meals and planning daily activities. This should help to ensure that people maintained a good quality of life and wellbeing.

The service provided a responsive and person centred approach to ensure support provided adequately met their specific needs. Care records contained what was important to them, their preferences, notable information about them such as their personality type or hobbies they had, their dreams and aspirations, and there were health action plans in place. This meant support staff had clear and specific guidance on how best to support that person.

There was a good system of recording and monitoring complaints. We saw that complaints were well managed and that people were encouraged to raise concerns and complaints formally or informally.

People and community professionals involved with the service spoke highly of the registered manager, the directors and staff at Engage Support Manchester. Our observations during this inspection were that the culture of the organisation was open and supportive.

There were quality assurance systems in place which helped to monitor the standard of service provided.

There were good staff support systems in place such as team meetings and operational policies and procedures. This helped to ensure there were appropriate resources available for staff to do their job effectively and thus create better outcomes for people supported by Engage Support Manchester.