Archived: Brentford Supported Living

At the last inspection on 3 November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection on 8 November 2017, we found the service remained Good.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and there were always additional staff able to cover in the event of staff absence. Employment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they were allowed to support people.

The risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. People were supported to manage their own safety and remain as independent as they could be. The provider had processes in place for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents.

People were supported to be independent with the management of their medicines and there were regular audits by the management team.

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 supported this practice.

Staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to people who might be deprived of their liberty. They ensured people were given choices and the opportunity to make decisions.

The provider ensured people's nutritional needs were met. People planned their meals, shopped for ingredients and cooked their own food with the support of staff.

People were supported by staff who were sufficiently trained, supervised and appraised. The service liaised with other services to share ideas and good practice.

People’s healthcare needs were met and staff supported them to attend medical appointments.

People lived in a comfortable environment which was clean and free of hazards. They were able to personalise their bedrooms as they wished.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity, compassion and respect. Support plans were clear and comprehensive. They recorded people's individual needs, detailed what was important to them, how they made decisions and how they wanted their care to be provided.

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff caring for people in a way that took into account their diversity, values and human rights. People were supported to make decisions about their activities, both at their home and in the community.

Information about how to make a complaint was available to people and their families, and they felt confident that any complaint would be addressed by the management.

There was a clear management structure at the service, and people and staff told us that the management team were supportive and approachable. There was a transparent and open culture within the service and people and staff were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and where issues were identified, they were addressed promptly.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

The service provided care to nine people who lived in rented accommodation. It provided care and support to older people and people with a learning disability.

People told us they felt safe living at the service and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and there were always additional staff able to cover in the event of staff absence.

Staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty (DoL). They ensured people were given choices and the opportunity to make decisions.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the management of medicines.

The provider ensured people's nutritional needs were met. People had choice of food and were involved in the shopping and cooking of all meals.

Staff received effective training, supervision and appraisal, and they told us that this made them feel supported and gave them confidence in their ability to deliver good care and support for people.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity, compassion and respect. Support plans were clear and comprehensive. They recorded people's individual needs, detailed what was important to them, how they made decisions and how they wanted their care to be provided.

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff caring for people in a way that took into account their diversity, values and human rights. People were supported to make decisions about their activities, both at their home and in the community.

There was a clear management structure at the service, and people and staff told us that the management team were supportive and approachable. There was a transparent and open culture within the service and people and staff were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and where issues were identified, they were addressed promptly.

We looked at how people were involved in their care and found people had detailed assessments of their needs including information about people's likes and dislikes. The service had also carried out assessments of people's competencies so they we able to understand people's capabilities of completing tasks on their own and where people required support to be more independent.

We found people's care needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with their care needs. People were supported to attend medical appointments and were also supported to receive annual health checks such as dentists and opticians. Care records we looked at were reviewed on a monthly basis and where there had been changes in people's needs care plans had been updated to reflect these.

People were protected from the risks of abuse. People who use the service told us they felt safe and knew what to do if they had any concerns about their safety and welfare. Staff working in the service were able to tell us about abuse and how to report incidents of abuse. This meant people were protected from harm.

We looked at staffing levels and found people were cared for by sufficient staff who had sufficient skills to care for people using the service, however we did bring to the providers attention that none of the staff working in the service had received any in depth training in dementia care.

All people said they were involved in their care and had seen their care plans and risk assessments. They were encouraged to take part in the local community and to be independent. One person told us 'I can do what I want and I can go where I want to'. Another said 'I do my own shopping and can buy my own clothes'. People reported that they took turns to complete the various tasks in the houses they lived in, such as cooking the meals, doing the shopping and cleaning. They also told us of the various opportunities they had to learn new skills such as flower design, collage and cooking.

People told us staff supported them in their daily lives and made sure they received the necessary treatment when they were not well. Risk assessments were in place where risks were identified as part of people's daily lives so they were enabled in taking calculated risks.

Staff and the local authority supported people in raising their awareness about abuse and keeping safe in the home and in the local community. People said they would talk to their relatives, the manager and other people within The Frances Taylor Foundation if they did not feel safe.