• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Barnardo's Indigo Project

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

13 Granville Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 4RU (020) 8554 2888

Provided and run by:
Barnardo's

All Inspections

23 February 2017

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 23 February 2017.

Barnardo’s Indigo Project provides respite care for children and young people with learning disabilities in their own homes. The level of support provided ranges from daily support or weekly assistance as per individually agreed care packages.

The service has 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection in November 2015, we found two breaches of the regulations. Sufficient systems were not in place to show how the registered manager monitored the quality of the service provided to the children/young people. Risks relating to children and young people's care and support and how to mitigate these were not always appropriately assessed.

At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and that the service now met the required standards.

Referrals for the service were received via the London Borough of Redbridge children with disabilities team. The care package was agreed by a panel of professionals. The service’s manager then carried out an assessment of the child/young person’s needs prior to allocating suitable staff to provide respite care.

Staff were caring and treated children/young people with dignity and respect. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its application for young people aged 16 and over, who used the service.

Systems were in place to manage risks to children/young people and staff. Children and young people were safe at the service and were cared for by staff who were knowledgeable about safeguarding children and young people. They knew how to report concerns.

The recruitment process was robust to make sure that the right staff were recruited to keep children and young people safe. Staff confirmed and personnel records showed that appropriate checks were carried out before they began working at the service.

Children and young people received the care they needed. Care plans were person centred and were reviewed and updated when needs changed.

Family members told us that the staff were kind and polite. They said the staff were punctual and stayed the duration of their allocated time.

Medicines were managed by family members, however staff were aware of the procedure to follow should they be occasionally required to administer medicines. They were trained and assessed as competent to administer medicines.

Staff were supported by the registered manager, through regular supervision and received an annual appraisal of their practice and performance.

There were sufficient qualified and experienced staff to meet children and young people’s needs. Staff received the support and training they needed to provide an effective service that met children and young people’s needs.

The children and young people were provided with meaningful and individualised activities and outings. The outings were developed over time in conjunction with the child/ young person and their family member.

A pictorial complaints procedure was available. Children and young people and their relatives were aware of the complaints procedure and knew who to speak with if they had any concerns.

Systems were in place to evaluate and monitor the quality of the service in order to make continuous improvements.

25 November 2015

During a routine inspection

The service is registered to provide personal care for children and young people with disabilities. The service currently supports 17 children and young people of whom four require personal care.

This is a service that provides short breaks and befriending services for children and young people with disabilities within the home and/or the community, providing respite for parents and families from their caring responsibilities.The level of support provided ranges from daily to weekly individually agreed care packages by Redbridge Council’s Children with Disabilities Team.

We last inspected this service in January 2014 when they met the standards we looked at.

The service has 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Referrals for the service were received via the London Borough of Redbridge Children with disabilities team. The care package was agreed by a panel of professionals. The service’s manager then carried out an assessment of the child/young person’s needs prior to allocating suitable staff to support them.

Staff had received training in how to keep people safe. They demonstrated a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns.

Systems were in place to manage risks to children/young people and staff. However, sufficient risk assessments were not in place to guide staff how to manage specific health conditions.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure children/young people’s needs were met. Staff had regular schedules so that the children/young people received care from a consistent staff group.

Children/young people were protected by robust recruitment procedures. Staff received the support and training they needed to give them the necessary skills and knowledge to meet children/young people’s assessed needs, preferences and choices and to provide an effective and responsive service. However, we found that staff did not receive consistent support through supervision and have made a recommendation about this.

Staff knew the children/young people’s individual needs and how to meet them. Sometimes staff took children and young people out for meals. The matching process ensured that staff were aware of any cultural or dietary needs of the children/ young person’s needs and went to appropriate places to dine.

Staff were caring and treated children/young people with dignity and respect. However, we found that staff did not have sufficient understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its application for young people aged 16 and over who used the service. We have made a recommendation about this. Family members told us that the staff were kind and polite.They told us that the staff were punctual and stayed the duration of their allocated time.

Family members and the children/young people were involved in the assessment and the planning of their care. They were confident that staff provided personalised care and knew their routines well.

The children and young people were provided with meaningful and individualised activities and outings. The outings were developed over time in conjunction with the child/ young person and their family member.

Family members told us that the care plans had been reviewed and any relevant changes were made when required. Staff said the communication between them and the office made sure that they were up to date with children/young people’s changing needs.

Family members told us they felt able to raise any concerns but did not have any. They said the registered manager was very approachable.

We did not find robust quality assurance arrangements in place to seek staff, stakeholders, people and their family member’s views about the service in order to receive feedback to make continuous improvements to the service.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

29 January 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection of the Barnado's Indigo Project (LEaSE region) no one who used the service was available to talk with. We spoke with a relative of one person who used the service. They told us "we have great communication between us and the carers."

There were systems in place to ensure people, or their representatives were asked to consent before proceeding with any care or treatment.

Care plans showed that people and their representative(s) had been involved in the development of their care plans. Each plan we reviewed contained a personalised 'About Me' section which outlined the likes and dislikes of the person who used the service. They also contained information about managing risks.

The manager and staff had the necessary knowledge and experience of safeguarding children and young adults from abuse.

We looked at staffing and saw that there were enough staff to meet the needs of the people using the service. The people we spoke with were very positive about the staff. The staff had received a wide range of training which meant they could support people with their needs.

We looked at the records which were both in paper and electronic format. They were stored securely and for the correct about of time. The staff we spoke with had good knowledge of data protection to keep people's records safe.

15 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. Peoples' needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Relatives told us they were happy with the care. One person said, "'I really can't fault it, they are very good'. Another said, "they are very good, they have helped my son to become much more independent'.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. We examined the personnel records for staff members. In every file we found that two character reference checks had been obtained and verified by the Head Office prior to each member of staff starting work at the service. In addition we also found that Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks had been made for each person.