Archived: Northern Case Management Leeds Office

Updated 25 May 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.

This inspection took place on 3, 5 and 9 May 2017 and was announced. On day one we visited the provider’s office and on days two and three we made telephone calls to staff and a relative of the person who used the service. The provider was given short notice of the inspection as we needed to be sure key members of the management team would be available at the office.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including previous inspection reports and statutory notifications sent to us by the service. We contacted the local authority, other stakeholders and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

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.

At the time of the inspection, there was one person receiving the regulated activity of personal care from the provider. During our inspection we spoke with their relative, three staff; which included two case managers, the training co-ordinator and the registered manager. We spent time looking at documents and records related to this person’s care and the management of the service.

Updated 25 May 2017

This was an announced inspection carried out on the 3, 5 and 9 May 2017. At the last inspection in January 2016, we found the service was not ensuring proper and safe management of medicines. Also, where people were unable to consent because they lacked capacity the service was not using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to assess and record decisions made in people’s best interests. At this inspection we found the required improvements had been made and these regulations were now being met.

The service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service provides care and support to people of any age who require rehabilitation following a brain or spinal cord injury. At the time of the inspection, there was one person receiving the regulated activity of personal care from the provider

There was a registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

A relative of the person currently using the service told us they were happy with the support their family member received from the service. They said they felt their family member was looked after well and were confident they were in ‘safe hands’. The relative told us their family member had a good quality of life because of the support received. They said they felt involved in the development of all aspects of their family members support package.

There were arrangements for the safe handling of medicines in place and staff were trained and competent in people's medicines support. Staff understood how to keep people safe and told us any potential risks were identified and managed well. We found there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm and safe recruitment procedures were in place.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff showed they understood how to ensure their practice was in line with the MCA and could describe how they made sure they respected people’s choices and wishes.

Arrangements were in place to make sure any dietary requirements were met and a range of other professionals were involved to help make sure people stayed healthy.

Staff were supported to do their job well. Care and support was provided by appropriately trained staff. They received support to help them understand how to deliver good care and support and confirmed their training prepared them well for their role. Staff knew the person they were supporting well and were confident they delivered good support.

People’s needs had been assessed and support plans contained good information which guided staff around how care should be delivered in a person centred way. Support plans covered what was important to the person, what they wanted to achieve and what support they needed. This included the support needed to enjoy and experience leisure opportunities.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of service provision and we found there were appropriate systems in place for the management of complaints. The relative of the person who used the service was aware of who to speak with to raise any concerns. They confirmed anything raised was always dealt with promptly. Staff and the relative we spoke with told us the management team led the service well and had driven improvement.