Archived: The Edward Lloyd Trust

Updated 24 March 2015

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.

We reviewed other information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We also contacted commissioners from the local authorities who contracted people’s care. We spoke with the local safeguarding teams. We did not receive any information of concern from these agencies.

This inspection took place on 16 December 2014 and 5 January 2015 and was an unannounced inspection. It 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 a service for people with a learning disability. During the inspection the inspector visited the provider’s head office to look at records and speak with staff and after the inspection the inspector visited some people who used the service to speak with them and the staff who supported them. An expert by experience carried out telephone interviews with some people who used the service and some relatives.

As part of the inspection we spoke with 12 people who were supported by Edward Lloyd Trust staff, two relatives, five support workers and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and checked to see how the schemes were managed. We looked at care plans for four people, the recruitment, training and induction records for four staff, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service and the quality assurance audits that the registered manager completed.

Updated 24 March 2015

This was an unannounced inspection carried out over two days on 16 December 2014 and 5 January 2015.

We last inspected The Edward Lloyd Trust on 16, 17 and 18 October 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all of its legal requirements.

The Edward Lloyd Trust is registered to provide personal care to children and adults with learning disabilities. People are supported by staff to live individually in their own homes or in small groups, referred to as independent supported living schemes. Different levels of support are provided over the 24 hour period dependent upon people’s requirements. Many of the people are tenants of their home and pay rent for their accommodation which is leased from housing associations. The main Trust office is accessible for people to visit.

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.

Due to their health conditions and complex needs not all of the people who used the service were able to share their views about the support they received.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. When new staff were appointed thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People told us they felt safe. They were relaxed and appeared comfortable with the staff who supported them. One person said; “I’ve always been safe with the staff. I feel very relaxed with them.” Another said; “I make my own meals but staff help sure I’m safe.” One relative told us; “(Name) is extremely safe.”

People received their medicines in a safe and timely way. People who were able, were supported to manage their own medicines. One person said; “They make sure I’ve taken my medicines and I can’t recall any mistakes.” Another said; “Staff don’t help me with my medicines.”

There were enough staff available to provide individual care and support to each person.

Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people’s care needs.

People who used the service had food and drink to meet their needs. Some people were assisted by staff to plan their menu, shop for the ingredients and cook their own food. Other people received meals that had been cooked by staff.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well and we observed that care was provided with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. People commented; “The staff are always polite and pleasant. They have a good work ethos.” Another said; “We think the team in our opinion is excellent.” And; “Staff chat with me. Most are easy to get on with and they are okay.” Another said; “It’s really good and I like the staff. I’ve had the service a few years.”

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. The records gave detailed instructions to staff to help people learn new skills and become more independent. One person said; “Staff help me make my meals.”

People were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and they were introduced to new activities. They were supported to contribute and to be part of the local community. One person said; “The staff helped me to work. I was sent a form and I applied and got the job.”

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

People were supported to maintain some control in their lives. They were given information in a format that helped them to understand if they did not read. This encouraged their involvement in every day decision making.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with people and/or family members and their views were used to improve the service.

A complaints procedure was available and written in a way to help people understand if they did not read. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain but they hadn’t needed to.

The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.