Background to this inspection
Updated
2 April 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. An expert by experience, who has personal experience of caring for someone who uses this type of service, made phone calls to relatives to people using the service, following the inspection.
Service and service type: This service provides care and support to people living in a number of ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separated contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 Hours’ notice of the inspection site visit to ensure the registered manager would be present and to ensure people’s consent was gained for us to speak to them for their feedback. This meant we were able to visit and speak with two people in their own homes on 17 January 2019.
Inspection site visit activity started on 17 January 2019 and ended on 18 January 2019. We visited the office location on 17 January 2019 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.
What we did: We used information the provider sent to us in the Provider Information return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send to us at least once annually to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at information we held about the service, including notifications they had made to us about important events. We also reviewed all other information sent to us from other stakeholders, for example, the local authority and members of the public.
During the inspection, we spoke with three people using the service and four relatives, to ask about their experience of care. We spoke with the registered manager, the acting service manager, a project manager, acting team leader and four care staff. We looked at the care records for three people, one staff employment related record and records relating to the quality and management of the service.
Updated
2 April 2019
About the service: Creative Support – Dudley Service provides care and support to people living in a number of ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. The service was providing personal care to 29 younger and older people at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were supported by staff who were aware of the risks to them and how to keep them safe from harm. Where safeguarding concerns had been raised, they had been responded to and acted on appropriately. Individual lessons where learnt when accidents and incidents took place, and work was underway to analyse the information collected for any lessons to be learnt.
Staff felt well trained and supported in their role. People were happy with the care they received and felt it met their needs. Staff practice was regularly observed to ensure people were supported safely and effectively and in line with their care needs.
Staff had received training that was appropriate to them in their role and supported them in providing care in the way people wanted.
Staff were aware of people’s health needs and liaised with other health care professionals to support their wellbeing. People were supported where appropriate at mealtimes.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were well cared for by staff who treated them with dignity and respect and encouraged them to maintain their independence. People were supported to be involved in decisions regarding their care. People received care and support based on their individual assessment, needs and preferences.
People were confident that if they raised a concern, it would be dealt with appropriately. Where complaints had been raised, they had been responded to and acted on appropriately.
People and staff were complimentary of the service and considered it to be well led. People were asked for feedback on their experience of the service through surveys, meetings and telephone calls. Staff felt supported and listened to and able to contribute to the running of the service. A number of quality audits were in place and the registered manager had plans in place to drive improvement in the service.
Relatives told us they would recommend the service, one relative told us, “I would recommend them because I feel good care is hard to come by and they do provide good care”.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated ‘Good’ (published 5 October 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection.
Follow up: We will monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.