27 June 2014
During a routine inspection
This summary is based on a visit to the offices where we spoke with the provider, the registered manager, the service development manager and two support workers. We also looked at some records. The full report contains the evidence to support this summary.
Is the service safe?
Support workers told us that they had received training in safeguarding procedures and understood their responsibility under the 'whistleblowing' procedure if concerning or unsafe practices were not being addressed by their managers. They told us they were confident that people using the service were safe, both with themselves and their colleagues.
People using the service had their needs assessed before the first support visit. This included a risk assessment which would help to identify any risks in the provision of the service and to develop strategies to reduce any risk.
Support workers told us they were provided with appropriate equipment to do their job. They said 'the managers always make sure we have what we need to do our job. There's never a shortage of resources in this company'.
Is the service effective?
The manager told us that everybody who received a service had their needs assessed before the service started. This enabled the service to identify anyone whose needs they could not effectively meet. The assessment also enabled an effective person centred support plan to be developed.
All staff who we asked confirmed that there was always a written support plan available in the home of the person using the service. They told us that people using the service were involved in discussion about their support plan. They also told us people could influence the way in which their care and support was provided.
The service had effective quality monitoring systems. These would help to identify if the service needed to amend any of its practices.
Is the service caring?
Staff told us the support from their managers was good. Staff also told us they knew it was an expectation of the service that people were treated with respect and had their dignity maintained.
Two support workers spoken with told us that people could influence the way in which their care or support was provided.
Is the service responsive?
All the staff who we asked told us they believed people would be listened to regarding any complaint. They also told us that the manager listened to opinions about the need to modify any care plan and, subject to commissioning or legal restraints, would do so.
There was a range of quality monitoring systems in place. However at the time of this inspection the service had been providing care and support to five people for less than twelve months. Consequently, although individual issues were addressed when identified, the information from the quality monitoring had not been fully integrated or analysed to inform the quality assurance part of the process. The manager told us this was planned to be addressed.
Is the service well led?
There were clear lines of accountability within the service.
There was a thorough induction period for new support workers who were encouraged to undertake regular training. There were regular team meetings where support workers were able to raise any issues. The workers understood the ethos and expectations of the service.
The process of the initial assessment of people who had been referred to the service helped to ensure that people's needs could be met by the support worker team, or they would not be accepted by the service. Support workers were not expected, nor requested by managers, to undertake any tasks they were not trained or competent to do.
Support workers when asked told us that they had regular supervision meetings and appraisals were planned annually. Managers were described by staff as really good, open and approachable. One support worker said 'the managers are massively supportive. Any advice I need, they're brilliant'.