Care For Freedom Limited

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 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 activity commenced on the 26 January and was announced. We obtained feedback from people on the 26 January and inspected the office location on the 30 January. We received further information from the provider on the 2 February 2018.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is a small service and the registered manager may have been working away from the office supporting staff or providing care. We wanted to make sure they would be available to facilitate our inspection. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications that had been submitted. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us. A Provider Information Return (PIR) was submitted on 8 December 2017. This is a document which contains information that the provider is required to send to us, which gives us some key information about the service and tells us what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

We reviewed care records and documents which related to people's health and well-being. These included care and support plans relating to three people, recruitment files for two staff members, complaints, staff training records and the overall quality assurance and auditing systems that were in place to monitor the service.

We also received feedback by email from relatives about how people were supported by the service. We received positive feedback from two health professionals. We spoke with three staff members, the registered manager and the provider to confirm the training and support they received.

Updated 4 April 2018

This was the first inspection since the service registered on 6 February 2017. The service was previously registered at a different location.

Care for Freedom Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community [and specialist housing]. It provides a service to adults who live with mental health conditions.

“Not everyone using Care for Freedom receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.”

The service has 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.

Care for Freedom are an “all-inclusive” organisation, offering their support so that all in the community can access their specialist skills and recovery-based service.

People felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about how to identify potential risks and understood their responsibilities in respect of safeguarding people. They had received safeguarding training.

Safe and robust recruitment processes were in place and had been followed to ensure that staff were suitable for the role they were employed for. There were sufficient numbers of staff assigned to meet people's needs in a timely way.

Staff were well supported in their roles. We saw that there was a comprehensive induction in place as well as on-going and refresher training in a range of topics relevant to their area of work. Staff were positive about the training they received. Staff received individual supervisions and attended regular team meetings.

The provider promoted training for all staff, ensuring that the management team were also trained to the highest standards. The provider used quality accredited schemes, ensuring that staff and managers were trained to deliver person centred care which under pined good practice and ensured both staff and people who they support have up to date and relevant information.

People were involved in planning how they wanted to be supported and how their care and support was provided. People had a detailed care plan which took account of their individual needs, preferences and choices.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed and measures were in place to mitigate and reduce these where possible. All care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed to ensure that they captured any changes to people’s needs and were current.

Consent was gained from people before any support was provided. People were supported to make decisions about their care and support. Staff and managers were aware of the need for decisions being made on behalf of people were in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to access health and social care professionals to help maintain their health and wellbeing, and the service worked in partnership with external partners to provide holistic care. Care plans detailed people’s support needs in relation to their health and the support required from the service. People received their medicines in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions.

People had developed positive relationships with the staff who supported them and also with office staff and managers. People's dignity and privacy was respected. Staff knew people's needs and preferences and supported them to retain as much independence as possible. People were supported to access and participate in activities in their communities.

People and staff found the registered manager and provider to be extremely supportive and approachable and spoke positively about how the service was managed. People felt listened to and their opinions were taken into account. There was a robust complaints policy and procedure in place and concerns were properly investigated and learning shared to help drive improvements. Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place along with audits to help monitor the quality and safety of the service.