Background to this inspection
Updated
24 March 2016
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.
The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience who took part in this inspection had experience of domiciliary care.
Prior to this inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including data about safeguarding and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are submitted to the Care Quality Commission and tell us about important events which the provider is required to send us. We spoke with the local authority to gain their feedback about the care people received. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced accessing the service. At the time of our inspection there were no safeguarding concerns being investigated by the local authority.
We visited one person who received support in their home and spoke with four people via the telephone. We reviewed five people’s care files, five staff files, the staff training matrix and a selection of policies and procedures. We reviewed records related to the management and safety of the service.
We looked at what quality audit tools and data management systems the provider had in place. We reviewed past and present staff rotas focussing on how staff provided care within a geographical area. We looked at how many visits a staff member was completing per day. We looked at the continuity of support people received.
Updated
24 March 2016
The inspection visit at Delight Supported Living was undertaken on 28 October 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people living in the community. We needed to be sure that someone would be in at the office.
Delight Supported Living provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. The agency covers a wide range of dependency needs including older people with a physical or learning disability and older people living with dementia or mental health problems. The agency's office is located close to Morecambe town centre. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people receiving a service from Delight Supported Living.
The service had 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.
At the last inspection on 29 May 2013, we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected.
Staff had received abuse training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices relating to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure. One person told us she always felt she was in safe hands, because staff were always reliable and punctual. They said, “Really quite impressed, I was very dubious at first but I do feel very safe with them.”
The provider had put in place procedures around recruitment and selection to minimise the risk of inappropriate employees to vulnerable people. Required checks had been completed prior to any staff commencing work at the service. This was confirmed from discussions with staff.
Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they were competent and had the skills required. People were supported to meet their care planned requirements in relation to medicines.
Staff received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs. For example, the registered manager trained staff on how to move and handle people.
People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care packages. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People told us they were supported by the same group of staff. This ensured staff understood the support needs of people they visited and how individuals wanted their care to be delivered. One person we spoke with regarding their relative said, “They have one girl who comes regularly to [my relative]. She is very good always respectful to [my relative]. They are very caring and understand [my relative’s] needs absolutely.”
Comments we received demonstrated people were satisfied with the service they received. The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care. Staff were introduced to people who received support prior to care taking place by a member of the management team. This showed the provider optimised people’s care by ensuring the continuity of staff supporting them.
A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain. We saw there had been one complaint and the outcome had been documented. Staff spoken with felt the management team were accessible supportive and approachable and would listen and act on concerns raised.
The registered manager had not recently sought feedback from people receiving support or staff. They had not formally consulted with people they supported and their relatives for input on how the service could continually improve. Quality audits had not recently been used at the time of our inspection. However the registered manager did have oversight of the service provided. When we inspected there had been a recent reduction of the provider service to maintain the quality of care delivered. The registered manager told us regarding the service provided, “We went smaller, we handed back some clients. We are not working where quality is affected by profit.”
We found staffing levels were suitable with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staffing levels were determined by the number of people being supported and their individual needs.
The inspection visit at Delight Supported Living was undertaken on 28 October 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people living in the community. We needed to be sure that someone would be in at the office.
Delight Supported Living provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. The agency covers a wide range of dependency needs including older people with a physical or learning disability and older people living with dementia or mental health problems. The agency's office is located close to Morecambe town centre. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people receiving a service from Delight Supported Living.
The service had 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.
At the last inspection on 29 May 2013, we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected.
Staff had received abuse training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices relating to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure. One person told us she always felt she was in safe hands, because staff were always reliable and punctual. They said, “Really quite impressed, I was very dubious at first but I do feel very safe with them.”
The provider had put in place procedures around recruitment and selection to minimise the risk of inappropriate employees to vulnerable people. Required checks had been completed prior to any staff commencing work at the service. This was confirmed from discussions with staff.
Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they were competent and had the skills required. People were supported to meet their care planned requirements in relation to medicines.
Staff received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs. For example, the registered manager trained staff on how to move and handle people.
People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care packages. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People told us they were supported by the same group of staff. This ensured staff understood the support needs of people they visited and how individuals wanted their care to be delivered. One person we spoke with regarding their relative said, “They have one girl who comes regularly to [my relative]. She is very good always respectful to [my relative]. They are very caring and understand [my relative’s] needs absolutely.”
Comments we received demonstrated people were satisfied with the service they received. The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care. Staff were introduced to people who received support prior to care taking place by a member of the management team. This showed the provider optimised people’s care by ensuring the continuity of staff supporting them.
A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain. We saw there had been one complaint and the outcome had been documented. Staff spoken with felt the management team were accessible supportive and approachable and would listen and act on concerns raised.
The registered manager had not recently sought feedback from people receiving support or staff. They had not formally consulted with people they supported and their relatives for input on how the service could continually improve. Quality audits had not recently been used at the time of our inspection. However the registered manager did have oversight of the service provided. When we inspected there had been a recent reduction of the provider service to maintain the quality of care delivered. The registered manager told us regarding the service provided, “We went smaller, we handed back some clients. We are not working where quality is affected by profit.”
We found staffing levels were suitable with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staffing levels were determined by the number of people being supported and their individual needs.