Archived: United Response - Bradford Community Support

Updated 9 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place between 21 and 27 July 2017. The inspection was carried out by three adult social care inspectors 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. On 21 and 22 July 2017, the expert by experience made phone calls to people who used the service and their relatives. On 24 July 2017, two inspectors visited the provider’s offices to review documentation connected with people’s care and support. Between 24 and 27 July 2017, two inspectors made phone calls to staff to ask them for their views on the service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications from the provider and speaking with the local authority contracts and safeguarding teams. We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This was returned to us in a prompt manner.

During the visit to the provider’s office, we spent time looking at records which included two people’s care records, staff recruitment records and records relating to the management of the service. We spoke with four people who used the service, seven relatives, six members of staff, the registered manager and regional manager.

Updated 9 August 2017

United Response – Bradford Community Support provides care and support to people with learning disabilities across the Bradford district. The main objectives are to support people to make meaningful relationships and networks in their local communities and have fulfilling daytime opportunities. Support is delivered in a flexible way to meet the needs of each individual. Most support is offered out and about although some support may be in the person’s own home or at a community base. The inspection took place between 21 and 27 July 2017 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider a short amount of notice of our visit to ensure a manager would be present to assist us. At the time of the inspection 27 people were using the service, with 16 of these people receiving support with personal care.

There was a registered manager 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.

At the last comprehensive inspection in November 2015, the service was rated ‘requires improvement’ overall, with two breaches of regulation found relating to ‘Safe care and treatment’ and ‘Good governance.’ We found improvements had been made to care plan documentation and as a result the service was no longer in breach of these regulations.

Overall, we rated the service as ‘Good.’ People, relatives and staff spoke highly about the organisation and said they would recommend. We saw overall, people received high quality care that met individual needs. The management team were responsive to people’s concerns and complaints and took them seriously. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. We found the registered manager was open and honest with us and we felt assured that any areas for improvement that we identified would be promptly addressed.

At this inspection we found some improvements were needed to the safe domain. People and staff raised some concerns over the reliability and consistency of staff and high staff turnover. Whilst people said personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn by staff, staff said there was sometimes a lack of availability aspeople or their relatives were responsible for providing this rather than the service. Overall medicines were safely managed, although some medicine profiles required more detail as to the exact nature of the care and support provided.

People said they felt safe and secure in the company of staff. Detailed risk assessments were in place which provided staff with clear information on how to keep people safe. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people and how to keep them safe. Incidents and accidents were recorded and action taken to learn from adverse events.

Staff received a range of training and support relevant to their role caring for people with learning disabilities. A person who used the service had delivered training to people which made staff appreciate things through their eyes and was a creative approach to training provision. People received care from a consistent team of staff who knew people and their needs well. Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed and where people lacked capacity, best interest processes were followed. People were involved in decision making to the maximum extent possible and people had control and choice over their daily lives.

Staff treated people with a high level of dignity and respect. People spoke positively about staff and gave positive examples of how they had helped and supported them. Regular staff knew people well and had developed good positive relationships with them.

People said care needs were met by the service. People’s care needs were assessed and detailed and person centred plans of care put in place. These were well understood by staff and gave us assurance that people’s care needs were met. People were supported with their health care needs.

People had access to a suitable range of activities and opportunities to build self-confidence and independence. These were subject to regular review.

People were encouraged to provide feedback on the service. People completed quality questionnaires, attended review meetings and were encouraged to approach management through more informal means. We saw people’s feedback had been acted on to make improvements to the service.

Systems to check and improve the service were in place. We saw these had been effective in driving improvement.