Archived: Spire (Preston) Ltd

Updated 16 May 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 checked 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 took place on 6 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the service short notice of our inspection to ensure the registered manager was available to assist us. The inspection was undertaken by two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. This expert by experience was involved in caring for people living with severe learning disabilities and/or behaviour that is considered to be challenging. They also had experience of caring for children and young people who use health, mental health or care services.

Prior to our inspection we looked at all the information we held about the service. This included any feedback we had received as well as any statutory notifications the provider is required to send to us by law. We also looked at the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used a planning tool to collate all this evidence and information prior to visiting the home.

To understand the experiences of people using services we spoke with three people in receipt of care and two family members. We also spoke with three staff and the registered manager who took overall responsibility of the service. During our inspection we checked a number of records in relation to the management and delivery of care. This included four care files, three staff files, team meeting minutes, surveys and feedback, duty rotas, audits and quality monitoring records. With permission we also visited one of the addresses where people, who were receiving care lived.

Updated 16 May 2018

The inspection took place on 6 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the service short notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available to support us during the inspection. This inspection was the first inspection since the service was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 December 2016 as a result of an office move. The previous inspection for this service was undertaken on 18 October 2013, when it was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations relevant at that time. During this inspection we found the service was meeting the requirements of the current legislation.

This service provides care and support to nine people living in five supported living settings, so they can live as independently as possible. 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. There were 31 other people in receipt of a service from the provider, but not in receipt of personal care.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpins Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our 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.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of how to deal with allegations of abuse. Systems to record and act on any abuse allegations were in place.

People told us their medicines were managed safely. Medication records had been completed in full. The registered manager discussed their plans to introduce records to document any gaps or refusals of people’s medication.

There was a safe recruitment process in place. The provider demonstrated their proactive approach to recruitment by ensuring people who used the service were actively involved in the interviews of potential staff. There was a detailed and comprehensive training programme in place that supported the development of the staff team in delivering effective care to people.

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 of the service supported this practice. All staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and how this related to supporting people who used the service. The registered manager clearly understood the legislation in relation to MCA, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Court of Protection. Consent to care and treatment was clearly recorded in the care files we looked at.

Records had been developed with the involvement of people who used the service or family members. Hospital passports were in place that provided information about how to support people in the event of an emergency that required a hospital admission.

People who used the service and relatives told us they were happy with the care they received. People’s likes, needs, wishes and choices were reflected in their care files, which demonstrated they had been involved in their development. There was a varied and detailed activities programme in place, which highlighted the type of activities people were support to take part in.

The care records we looked at were detailed and comprehensive, which reflected the individual needs of people. The care plans clearly supported the delivery of care to people who used the service.

An effective system of recording and dealing with complaints was in place. There were a number of examples of positive feedback about the service and the care provided. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of service provided. We saw regular team meetings were taking place that enabled staff to be involved in the operation and delivery of care to people. We received positive feedback about the registered manager and the leadership of the service.