Edenvale Care Limited

Edenvale Care Limited provides care and support to approximately 47 people in their own homes and in a number of supported living projects. The majority of people using the service had a learning disability. The majority of the personal care and supported living services are provided in the London Borough of Enfield. Supported living services were also being provided in the London Borough of Haringey. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. This inspection looked at people's personal care and support.

The service had been developed and designed prior to the development of the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values included choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. However, we saw that people with learning disabilities who used the service were able to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The service was exceptionally caring. Care staff knew the importance of developing good working relationships with the people they looked after and ensured they provided person centred care based on their specific needs. The feedback we received from people, and their relatives, and health and social care professionals was overwhelmingly positive. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s interests, family life and life history. The service had helped people achieve their dreams and aspirations. The service promoted people to live as independently as possible at home and accessing the community. The service worked with other agencies to support people to be safe in the community. People were supported by a team of regular staff that they knew and who they said were kind and caring. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

Staff were employed in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs and to keep them safe. Staff teams were organised in a way that helped ensure consistency. Each person had a designated team of staff who they were familiar with and had formed strong and trusting relationships. Any changes to staffing were communicated clearly to people and relatives to ensure people remained safe and comfortable in their homes.

The service actively involved people who used the service and their relatives in the recruitment process and in staff training. Staff members were recruited and trained to meet people's specific care needs we saw that care teams were highly reflective of the shared interests, backgrounds and beliefs of the people who they supported. This approach was firmly underpinned by the culture of the service, which we established was positive, person centred, inclusive and forward thinking.

People were valued and supported to be as independent as possible. People's rights were upheld, consent was always sought before any support was given. Staff were aware of the legislation that ensured people were protected in respect of decision making and any restrictions and how this impacted on their day to day roles. Staff strongly advocated for people to live the life they wanted whether that was on their own or in supported living schemes.

We spoke with a range of people who used the service, relatives, health and social care professionals and staff who all felt this was an excellent service. People described a caring and resourceful staff team who respected individual's dignity, privacy, views and choices. In their feedback people particularly highlighted the quality of their relationships with their care team and they told us they valued the continuity of their care and the reassurance this provided. People's feedback was actively sought and people who used the service, families and staff were all encouraged to share their views and contribute ideas on how their care could be enhanced.

People received their medicines safely. People's support plans clearly described the level of support required and how this support should be delivered. Staff who administered medicines had received up to date training, and competency checks were completed to help ensure their skills and knowledge remained sufficient and up to date.

Detailed, comprehensive care plans and risk assessments were in place and we found that the provider worked collaboratively with staff from other agencies to minimise identified risks.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and we found that complaints were investigated and where possible resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. The service was particularly skilled at helping people and their families to explore and record their wishes about care at the end of their life, and to plan how they will be met so that they feel consulted, empowered, listened to, and valued.

The organisation's values and philosophy were clearly explained to staff and there was a positive culture where people and their relatives felt included and their views were sought. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care and continually making improvements by listening to people.

Edenvale Care Limited provides care and support to approximately 88 adults and children in their own homes and in a number of supported living projects. The majority of people using the service have a learning disability. Majority of the personal care and supported living services is provided in the London Borough of Enfield. Supported living services were also being provided in the London Borough of Haringey. Approximately one third of the people using the service received personal care.

The service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe. Medicines were managed safely. Risk assessments identified the risks to people and how these could be prevented. Staff were available to meet people's needs.

People were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs would be met. Managers and staff had received training on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Services should only deprive someone of their liberty when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them, and it should be done in a safe and correct way.

Staff had access to ongoing training. They were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s support needs.

People were supported to eat and drink. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs.

People received individualised support that met their needs. Staff knew how to respond to people's needs in a way that promoted their individual preferences and choices regarding their care.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people’s preferences, likes and dislikes regarding their care and support needs. Care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences.

People, relatives and staff said the manager was approachable and supportive. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. People felt confident to express any concerns, so these could be addressed.

People told us they liked the service and were happy. One person said, 'I'm very happy here. I like the staff and I have choice about things.' Comments from other people included, 'staff are very helpful' and 'they help me go out when I want'. Relatives we spoke with were positive, typically making reference to 'good staff' and 'good communication.' One relative said, 'I'm really impressed. The supported living has worked well.' External professionals we spoke with were also complimentary about the provider. One said, 'I think Edenvale is an excellent service.'

Managers and staff were familiar with the provider's aims to provide individualised care based on people's wishes. People we spoke with, including relatives and external professionals, told us that the way the service was run matched the aims and values. For example, care records were person centred and had been developed with people using the service. They were attractively presented with photographs, pictures and personal information in easy read formats. Care needs had been assessed, were regularly reviewed and included input from external professionals such as the local health and social care learning disabilities team.

There were adequate arrangements to safeguard people including having relevant children and adults safeguarding procedures and providing staff with safeguarding training. The relevant staff recruitment checks were being carried out and there was a two week induction before staff started to work with people. Staff told us that they felt supported in their work. Staff were being provided with a range of relevant training and they had received regular supervision.

There were a range of methods for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. These included regular visits to people using the service, meetings with relatives, monitoring of incidents and missed visits. The provider was taking action to develop the monitoring tools to include introducing new forms and ways to gather feedback from people using the service.