Archived: Endurance Health Ltd

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

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

The service remained safe. Sufficient staff were employed to manage people’s needs, and enable them to engage in activities of their choice, through appropriate risk management. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and were aware of the protocols to follow should they have concerns. Staff reported that they would not hesitate to whistle-blow if the need arose. Where staff were involved in medicine management, these were managed safely. Staff were competency checked annually and audits were completed to ensure people were kept safe.

The service had improved in the domain of effective. Systems were now in place to ensure records were maintained for any best interest decisions made by the service. Support continued to be delivered by a trained staff team, who were able to respond appropriately to people’s changing needs. Staff were supervised and supported by an effective management team, who made certain they were available to staff at all times. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

The service remained caring. Staff were reported to be polite, respectful and ensured they maintained people’s dignity when supporting them. They encouraged open communication and worked on motivating people to increase their independence. Evidence of using systems of communication that reflected the person’s choice was evident. Where concerns had been identified of staff proficiency in English, the service considered ways to make improvements.

The service remained responsive. Care plans were individualised, focusing on people’s specific needs. The service took necessary action to prevent and minimise the potential of social isolation. People and staff were protected from discrimination. Measures were in place to allow people to be treated equally. Systems to monitor and investigate complaints were in place, with detailed records maintained.

The service had developed methods of good governance, that provided real time evaluation of practice. A thorough quality assurance audit was completed annually with an action plan being generated, and followed up on. Feedback was encouraged from people, visitors and stakeholders and used to improve and make changes to the service. We found evidence of compliments and complaints that illustrated transparency in management . The service was well-led.

People's health and welfare needs were being met and they told us that they were happy with the support provided.

We found the management of medicines to be safe and appropriate to people's needs.

Staff were trained to ensure they were competent and they were well supported by the manager.

The quality of the service was being monitored and systems were in place to manage risks to people's health, welfare and safety.

People told us they felt safe and had no concerns about the competence or care practice of staff. We spoke with a local authority commissioner of care. They confirmed they had not received any information of concern about the provider or the safety or quality of service provided. We spoke with one member of the staff team who provided care to people. They confirmed they had received safeguarding of adults training. This showed people were supported and protected through training provided for staff.

When we looked at the recruitment record for staff we found appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work to protect people who received care.

People told us they felt very confident in the willingness of the provider to listen to any concerns and take action to deal with them where it was possible to do so.