We carried out a review of the data available to us about Essential Social Care 13 Panfield Road 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 Essential Social Care 13 Panfield Road, you can give feedback on this service.
At the last inspection of Essential Social Care on 15 December 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The service demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.
There was a Registered Manager in place. 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.
Staff were trained to safeguard people from abuse. They knew the signs to recognise abuse and the procedure to report any concerns. They also knew how to whistle-blow if needed to protect people.
People’s needs were met by staff. There were sufficient staff available and deployed properly to support people. Staff underwent recruitment checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people.
Risks to people were identified and management plans developed to alleviate harm to them. People received support to take their medicines as prescribed and the management of medicines was safe. Staff knew how to report incidents and accidents and records of these were maintained. Actions were put in place to reduce reoccurrence. Staff were trained and followed good infection control procedures.
Staff and the registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People consented to their care before they were delivered.
People’s care needs were assessed and support plans developed on how identified needs would be met individually. People received support from staff to meet their needs, develop new skills, and achieve their goals. People were supported with activities that they enjoyed. People were supported to maintain relationships that mattered to them.
Staff were supported through an induction, supervision, appraisal and training to provide an effective support to people. Staff provided support to people where needed with preparing their meals and meeting their nutritional needs. Staff supported people to access health and social care services to maintain good health. The service ensured people’s support was well coordinated with other services and professionals.
People were treated with compassion and kindness. People told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity. People were involved in planning their care and support. Staff respected their decisions and choices. People were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as possible. The service promoted people’s religious beliefs and culture and supported them to maintain these.
People and their relatives knew how to complain about the service should they need to. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the service. Staff told us they received the direction and leadership they needed from the registered manager and service managers.
Various checks were carried out to assess the quality of care provided to people. Actions were put in place to address areas of concerns identified. The service worked in partnership with other organisations to improve the service.
This inspection took place on 15 and 22 December 2015 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hour notice of the inspection because the service is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission in July 2011.
Essential Social Care is a domiciliary care provider offering support to adults with learning disabilities and associated mental health conditions. At the time of this inspection, 17 people were using the service. The service provides support for people living in Greenwich and Bexley boroughs.
There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. The manager appointed into post was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission to become a registered manager. 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 using the service felt safe and that staff treated them well. The provider had safeguarding adult’s policies and procedures in place and staff understood of their responsibility to safeguard the people they supported from abuse. There was a whistle blowing policy and procedure also available and staff said they would use it if they had any concerns. Risk to people had been assessed and the assessments were regularly reviewed to ensure risks were safely managed. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff began working at the service and there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People’s medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed by healthcare professionals. The provider had arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergency.
Support was in place for staff in the form of induction, training and supervision to ensure they had appropriate skills and knowledge to perform the role which they had been employed to undertake. Both staff and the management team demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink for their wellbeing. Where required, people had access to a range of health and social care professionals.
People’s privacy and dignity were maintained and their independence promoted. People were supported to keep relationships with their friends and family.
Each person using the service had a support plan in place which was reviewed every six months or when a person’s needs changed. People were engaged in various activities of their choice to ensure they were stimulated. People knew how to make a complaint when they were not satisfied with the service. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and this included tenants’ meetings and audits at the various supported living sites. Where improvements were identified, there were action plans in place to improve the service delivery.
All staff we spoke with were happy working at the service.
We spoke with five people who used the service, although not all of them were able to verbalise how they felt clearly. One person told us "Staff treat me nice because they help me with personal care." Another person said "I like it here because it is good."
Records showed that people who used the service were also supported by other healthcare professionals. These included GPs, opticians, dentists, consultant psychiatrists and social workers. We also saw correspondence for people from the HMRC, DWP, colleges, day centres and work placements.
We asked the registered manager for details on how the staffing structure in place had been decided. They told us that this was based on several factors including dependency levels of people who used the service, the ratio of staff to people and staff skills and experience.
Records showed that people who used the service were asked for their views about the care and treatment they received and their opinions were acted on. Key-working sessions were held with people every two months, which allowed them to discuss how they felt about the support which had been provided.
We found that people's care had been planned in line with their individually assessed needs and that their views and preferences had been expressed within their support plans. Staff were adequately supported in their roles through training and supervision and the provider had taken steps to identify the risk of abuse and prevent abuse from happening within the service. We also found that records relating to people's care and treatment were accurate and fit for purpose.