Updated 26 June 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection was carried out by one inspector and one assistant inspector.
Service and service type:
This service provides care and support to people living in their own homes, known as a ‘supported living’ setting, 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.
The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means the provider is legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
The management structure compromised of a chief executive officer (CEO), supported by project managers, supported by team coordinators.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit. This enabled us to make arrangements to talk to people and ensure the CEO and project managers were available.
What we did:
Due to technical problems, the provider was not able to complete a provider information return. This is the information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what it 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 reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications received about deaths, accidents/incidents and safeguarding alerts which the provider are required to send us by law. We also contacted the local authority who commissioned services for feedback.
During the inspection nine people shared their views about the support they received. 11 staff members were spoken with along with two project managers and the CEO who was available throughout the inspection.
We looked at care records for three people. We also looked at medicine’s administration records, as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service. These included incident and accident monitoring as well as complaints. We viewed four staff files and training records.