NAS Community Services (East Anglia)

Updated 4 April 2018

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 inspection was announced and carried out by one inspector. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because it is a small service and we wanted to be certain the registered manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to make arrangements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out their experience of the service.

As part of our inspection planning, we requested that the provider complete 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. This was received from the provider. We also reviewed information we held about the service including feedback sent to us from other stakeholders, for example the local authority and members of the public. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about events and incidents that occur including unexpected deaths, injuries to people receiving care and safeguarding matters. We reviewed the notifications the provider had sent us.

Inspection activity started on 14 February 2018 and ended 28 February 2018. The inspector visited the office location on 14 February 2018 to meet with one person who used the service, the registered manager, a team leader, two support workers, and to review care records and policies and procedures.

On the 14 February 2018 with their permission, we visited one of the ‘supported living’ premises in Suffolk and met three of the people who lived there. We also spoke with a team leader and two support workers.

People had complex needs, which meant they could not always readily tell us about their experiences. They communicated with us in different ways, such as facial expressions and signs and gestures. We observed the way people interacted with their support workers.

We reviewed the care records of three people to check they were receiving their care as planned. We looked at records relating to the management of the service, staff recruitment and training, and systems for monitoring the quality of the service.

After our visits we spoke with two members of staff on the telephone and received electronic feedback from two relatives and two community professionals.

Updated 4 April 2018

NAS Community Services (East Anglia) provides care and support to adults with autism living in three ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. Two of the premises were located in Suffolk and one in Cambridgeshire. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. This service was registered on 26 May 2016. This was their first inspection.

At the time of this announced comprehensive inspection of 14 February 2018 there were seven people who used the service. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because it is a small service and we wanted to be certain the registered manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to seek agreements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out their experience of the service.

A registered manager was in post. 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 and their relatives had developed good relationships with the support workers and the registered manager. People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. They were able to express their views and support workers listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on.

People’s care records were accurate and reflected the support provided. Support workers consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and support workers supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Procedures and guidance in relation to the MCA were followed which included steps that the provider should take to comply with legal requirements.

Systems were in place to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, mobility, nutrition and with accessing the community. Support workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Recruitment checks were carried out with sufficient numbers of support workers employed who had the knowledge and skills through regular supervision and training to meet people’s needs.

Where people required assistance with their medicines, safe systems were followed. Support workers were provided with training in infection control and food hygiene and understood their responsibilities relating to these areas. Systems were in place to reduce the risks of cross infection.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies. Where support workers had identified concerns in people’s wellbeing there were systems in place to contact health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Where required, people were safely supported with their dietary needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the care they received. People’s feedback was valued and acted on. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to progress.