Archived: Peterborough Supported Living Services

People using the service lived in two single occupancy houses, one house with two people sharing and four multi-occupancy houses shared by up to five people. Not everyone using Peterborough Supported Living Services receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

We undertook an unannounced comprehensive (planned) inspection of Peterborough Supported Living Services between 9 and 16 November 2017. At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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.

Staff knew how to respond to possible harm and how to reduce risks to people. Lessons were learnt about accidents and incidents and these were shared with staff members to ensure changes were made to staff practise or the environment, to reduce further occurrences. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely. Regular cleaning and practise made sure that infection control was maintained.

People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received a choice of meals, which they liked, and staff supported them to eat and drink. They were referred to health care professionals as needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them. Adaptations were made to ensure people were safe and able to move around their home as independently as possible.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.

People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records guided staff in how to do this. There were numerous activities for people to do and take part in and people were able to spend time with their peers and take part in cultural and religious activities. A complaints system was in place and there was information in alternative formats so people knew who to speak with if they had concerns.

Staff worked well together and felt supported by the management team, which promoted a culture for staff to provide person centred care. The provider’s monitoring process looked at systems throughout the service, identified issues and staff took the appropriate action to resolve these. People’s views were sought and changes made if this was needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Is the service caring?

We saw how members of staff treated people and this was done well and in a respectful way. We saw that staff were kind and attentive and encouraged people to be independent and live meaningful lives.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's individual physical, mental and social care and support needs were assessed and met. This also included people's individual choices and preferences as to how they liked to spend their day.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people's individual activities were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these risks. Staff had an understanding of their roles and responsibilities in making sure people were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider was taking appropriate action to ensure that practices to protect a person from the risk of harm were lawful and in keeping in line with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service effective?

Our observations found that members of staff knew people's individual health and wellbeing needs. We saw that people responded well to the support they received from staff members. One of the people who used the service said that they had enjoyed their morning spent shopping with support from a member of staff.

Is the service well led?

Staff said that they felt supported and trained to safely do their job. Improvements had been made since our last inspection to ensure that people who used the service received support and care from staff who were supported, trained and competent to safely do their job. Quality assurance systems were in place and people were listened to and were safe from the risk of unsafe and inappropriate support and care.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We reviewed people's support plans which included information about subjects such as helping people do everyday tasks and managing their medical conditions. Staff we spoke with told us that plans provided them with the appropriate information and that they were reviewed regularly.

Personnel files confirmed that appropriate checks were carried out before staff were deemed suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Supervision and training records showed that not all staff received appropriate professional development.

We reviewed three out of 19 people's support files which included a personal portfolio, guide to care/support plans, risk assessments and short term goals. We saw evidence that key worker meetings were held on a regular basis with the involvement of the person who used the service and a representative where appropriate.

The provider had a robust system to manage medication safely and there was a policy in place for staff to follow.

We spoke with five staff members who told us they were happy working for Peterborough Supported Living Services and felt supported by their manager and were able to discuss matters at any time.

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and these were acted on.

We found that people were supported to live a quality of life which promoted their sense of well-being and maintained and promoted their health. Their support and care plans provided staff with clear guidance in how people’s individual support and care needs were to be met in a consistent, safe and appropriate way.

People were protected from the risk of abuse due to effective safeguarding systems in place. The service had a culture of learning from incidents, including improving safeguarding and whistle blowing information for staff.

Adequate staff recruitment and training systems were in place to ensure that people who used the service received safe and appropriate care from suitable staff.

There was an effective system in place for people to make a complaint and to be listened to.