Archived: New Key Bristol

New Key provides support to people in their own home. People using the service have learning disabilities and/or autism, or physical disabilities. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection, four people were receiving support with personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received good, person centred support that met their needs. People were encouraged to be part of planning their own support and setting their goals. Care was reviewed regularly to ensure it continued to meet people’s needs.

People were safe and had built positive relationships with staff who supported them. There were sufficient numbers of staff to cover people’s care needs. Arrangements were in place to cover shifts in the event of unplanned absence. People received safe support with their medicines where this was required.

Staff understood people’s needs well and worked hard to support people towards their goals and aspirations. We heard many positive examples of how people had been supported in an inclusive and empowering way. Staff incorporated the advice and guidance of other health and social care professionals in to their support.

Staff were well supported and trained. They told us they felt valued and listened to and free to raise any issues or concerns.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The service was well led. A strong person centred culture had been established within the service. The provider was working at a national level to promote ways of funding care that empowered and provided choice for people receiving care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (report published 10 August 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

New Key Bristol provides supported living for people with learning disabilities and autism. At the time of our inspection, three people using the service received support in line with the regulated activity ‘personal care’.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

New Key Bristol provided an effective service that fully recognised people’s rights in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff fully explored people’s ability to make decisions themselves and used creative ways to ensure people could engage in the process. This ensured people were kept at the centre of decision making and that their human rights were protected.

Staff had excellent working relationships with healthcare professionals. In one case, we were told New Key were working effectively with community health professionals to ensure a person’s care could be delivered at home rather than in hospital. This meant that the person was receiving care in a familiar environment in the least restrictive way possible.

Staff were very caring and patient with the people they supported and there were occasions when they went above and beyond the expectations of their role. This included for one person, a member of staff staying with them during an emergency admission to hospital until the early hours of the morning. This person experienced high levels of anxiety and so having a familiar member of staff by their side was important to their wellbeing.

The service ensured that people’s views were taken in to account in the running of the service. People were actively encouraged to attend ‘review evenings’, where their views and opinions were listened to. Attendance at this evening was encouraged through providing refreshments and a film showing following the meeting. People using the service were also involved in the recruitment of new staff.

People received safe support with their medicines. Checks were carried out to ensure staff were completing administration records accurately. There was clear information in people’s plans about the support they required with their medicines. There were sufficient staff to ensure people’s needs were met and that they had a stable team of staff supporting them. There were systems in place to ensure new staff were safe and suitable for their role.

The service was well-led. Staff were all enthusiastic and motivated in their work and spoke positively about the support they received. The service worked with partnership organisations in the adult social care sector.

We found that people's care needs were being met. A relative told us that the agency 'did what was expected' and that the support staff worked well with them. Individual plans had been written which set out the care that had been agreed. The plans helped to ensure that staff supported people in a consistent way which met their individual needs. Support with medicines was included in the plans and guidance had been written so that staff knew how to manage this safely.

Staff told us that they felt supported in their role. We found that the arrangements being made for training and supervision had improved during the year. There was a detailed policy about quality assurance. However the action being taken and the records did not reflect the arrangements as described in the policy. There was a risk that standards were not being checked regularly and any shortcomings would not be followed up.