Multi Sensory Impairment Enabling (MSIE)

Updated 11 August 2023

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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one 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.

Service and service type

Multi Sensory Impairment Enabling (MSIE) provides specialist personal care and support to children and young people in school, home and community settings, so that they can live as independently as possible and fulfil their potential.

Registered Manager

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service. The provider was not asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to this inspection. A PIR is information providers send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 2 members of staff, the registered manager and the nominated individual. We visited a specialist school setting and met with 1 young person receiving a service.

We reviewed a range of records. We looked at a variety of records relating to the care and support provided. This included three staff files in relation to recruitment, and various audits/reports relating to the quality and safety of the service. We requested a variety of records were sent to us relating to staff training and regards the management of the service.

After the inspection

After our visit we sought feedback from people using the service, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals to obtain their views of the service provided to people. We received feedback from 11 members of staff, 7 relatives, and 4 health and social care professionals. We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.

Updated 11 August 2023

About the service

Multi Sensory Impairment Enabling (MSIE) is a specialist domiciliary care service, supporting children and young people in the community who are registered deaf and blind with associated conditions. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 12 children and young people receiving personal care, either in education settings, or in the community for respite care. All support packages were long term, specialist packages funded and commissioned by the local authority.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People felt safe and supported by staff. Comments included, "[The staff] are super highly skilled. They have the service user at the heart of the service. They support and advocate for them. I know when they’re with them they are 100% safe.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding of what might constitute abuse and knew how to report any concerns they might have.

People's individual risks were identified, and risk assessment reviews were carried out to identify ways to keep people safe.

There were safe processes in place for the management of medicines.

Effective infection control measures were in place.

Families generally confirmed that staffing arrangements met their needs. Staffing arrangements matched the support commissioned and staff skills were integral to this to suit people's needs. Health professionals and families commented the service had had issues with recruitment and retaining staff, but the provider was aware and recruitment for suitable specialist staff was ongoing within funding restrictions. At the time of the inspection, 1.7 full time staff were required to meet current overall support hours fully. Where a person's needs increased or decreased, staffing was adjusted accordingly. For example, there were examples where risk had been managed well resulting in less staff required to mitigate the risk.

There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place.

People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent. As a specialist service it was important that people were supported by staff with the specialist training required to meet people’s individual complex needs.

Care files were personalised and detailed to reflect people's personal preferences. Their views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service.

Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people's care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.

Staff and management relationships with people were caring and supportive. Staff provided care that was kind and compassionate.

Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager worked well with them and encouraged their professional development. The provider worked hard to instill a culture of care in which staff truly valued and promoted people’s individuality, protected their rights and enabled them to develop and flourish.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued by the provider which supported a positive and improvement driven culture. Some staff commented that they did not always feel the pay received recognised their specialist skills. The provider was aware of such issues which were related to funding and outside of their control.

A number of methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received. The service made continuous improvements in response to their findings.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 1 August 2022 and this is their first inspection.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.