Background to this inspection
Updated
15 July 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 visit took place on 26 May 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that someone would be available to speak with us.
The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an 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 had experience of caring for someone who used this type of service.
Before our inspection visit, we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about a service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information that we held about the service to inform and plan our inspection. This included information that we had received and statutory notifications. A statutory notification contains information relating to significant events that the provider must send to us. We contacted the local authority that had funding responsibility for some of the people who used the service.
We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. This included three people’s plans of care and associated documents including risk assessments. We looked at four staff files including their recruitment and training records. We also looked at documentation about the service that was given to staff and people using the service and policies and procedures that the provider had in place. We spoke with the manager, a team leader and three care workers.
We spoke with one person who uses the service and three relatives of people who used the service. This was to gather their views of the service being provided. We were unable to speak with other people who used the service due to communication difficulties.
Updated
15 July 2016
We inspected the service on 26 May 2016 and the visit was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that someone would be available to speak with us.
Glebe House Woodgate Chambers provides personal care for people with learning disabilities or who were on the autism spectrum living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection eight people were using the service.
The service had 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.
People told us that they felt safe when staff supported them and that there were enough staff to meet their needs.
Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people in a safe manner. The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. However, people had not always been protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. We found that an incident where money had gone missing had not been reported to other bodies such as the police or safeguarding for investigation.
People generally received their medicines as prescribed. We found that where people had missed their medicine it had not been recorded that medical advice had been sought. Staff were trained in how to administer people’s medicines and were regularly checked for their continued competency to do so.
People were receiving support from staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge. Staff received regular training. Staff undertook an induction programme when they started work at the service.
Staff sought people’s consent prior to providing their care. Staff were working in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was being protected including the safe storage of their care records. Staff knew people’s communication preferences and the provider had made information easier to read. For example, pictures were used to aid people’s understanding.
People were being supported to be as independent as they wanted to be by staff who knew their preferences. People had been involved in decisions about their support.
People had support plans that were person-centred. This meant that the support people received was focused on them as individuals. Staff knew about the people they were supporting including their interests and hobbies.
People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were supported or prompted to access healthcare services.
People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a policy in place and followed this when a complaint had been received.
People were involved in the assessment and review of their needs.
People and staff felt the service was well managed. The service was well organised and led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.
The provider carried out monitoring in relation to the quality of the service that people received.