Archived: United Response - London SLS

At this inspection we visited two houses in Merton, one where five people were living and the other where six people were living. Each person was a tenant in these housing association properties. All of the people had learning disabilities and most of them did not have the ability to communicate verbally except in a very limited capacity. We were able however to speak to three people and to five relatives; five staff; the area manager and two shift leaders. We reviewed five people's care plans and five staff files.

Was the service safe?

People told us that they felt safe where they were living. The five relatives of the people who we spoke with said that they thought people were safe, that they were protected from abuse and that their rights were respected and upheld. One person said, 'I feel that, they are safe, I have never seen anything to make me concerned.' Another person said, 'Yes they are safe'.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. There were mechanisms in place to help to safeguard people from the risks of abuse. People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff.

The service had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust to ensure that only suitable people were employed.

Is the service caring?

People were assisted by kind and supportive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and professionalism and gave appropriate encouragement when supporting people. The people we talked with said the staff treated them well and respected their wishes, dignity and privacy. Relatives were positive about the care given to their family members. They said that staff respected and involved people as much as possible with the care and support that was provided. One person said, 'Staff are very good and we are quite happy with the way care is given. They let him have choices; as much as possible he is involved in planning his activities and in planning the menu'.

We observed that staff knocked on doors before entering people's rooms and asked if it was convenient for them to go in. This reflected the caring environment that we found on the day of the inspection.

Is the service responsive?

The way in which care was being provided was set out in care plans even though some of those plans were out of date. Relatives of people told us that they were happy with the care being provided to people. We saw that care plans had not been reviewed regularly in all cases. This is important as it helps staff understand what people want or need or how they were feeling.

All the people we spoke with knew how to make a complaint. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place and discussions we had with relatives and staff indicated that they would be supportive of anyone who needed to complain. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service effective?

People's needs and potential risks had not been regularly assessed although care plans were "person-centred" and focussed on people's individual needs. We found that care was being delivered in line with these care plans.

People's health and care needs were assessed together with them or their relatives or professional representatives and they were involved in their care and support planning. Relatives told us that they had been involved in the development of their family members care plans and that the plans reflected their needs. One relative told us, 'Staff came and asked me about their likes and dislikes and their needs and they discussed the risks I thought might exist. After that a care plan was drawn up and that was explained to me'. We inspected five people's care files. They included essential information about the person, needs and risk assessment information, health care action plans and appointments.

Is the service well-led?

The views of people who use the services, their relatives and staff were listened to. Relatives of people told us that they were asked for their input with care planning and that they attended meetings in the two houses where they were encouraged to participate in discussions and decisions about daily living choices. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the agency. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.

We spoke with one person using the service. The feedback we received about people's care and support was positive. They told us 'The support I receive is great. Everyone I work with is nice and supportive. I used to live in the supported living environment but I have my own home now. I was able to interview staff and pick members of staff who I wanted to support me in my own home'.

People using the service received continuous care and support from suitably trained and experienced staff that were familiar with people's individual needs, strengths, preferences and daily schedules. We looked at the recruitment procedures for staff and found that the necessary policies and procedures were in place. This meant vulnerable adults were suitably supported and protected.

People who use the service and their representatives knew who to speak with if they had a concern or complaint. People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered. There were effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service. We found there were robust systems in place to obtain feedback on the service and to respond where improvements were needed.

During our inspection we spoke with five members of staff. They told us that they felt supported in their roles and daily communication with senior members of staff was good and effective. Staff members informed us that the staff induction programme was informative and prepared them for their roles and responsibilities.

People told us they were happy with the care and/or support they received in their own home from London SLS. They also told us that staff were always helpful and caring and that they were given support to be independent and learn new skills. One person said 'I am happy living at Autumn Close' and 'I like all the staff that come and support me at home'.

During our visit we saw people who received supported living services were well cared for and were actively encouraged to be as autonomous as possible. We also saw staff treated people they supported with respect and dignity.

We saw people who used the service received continuous care and/or support from suitably trained and experienced staff that were clearly familiar with people's unique needs, strengths, preferences and daily routines.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place that ensured the service was maintained to a good standard and improvements were made as necessary.