We carried out a review of the data available to us about A K Supported Housing Outreach Service on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about A K Supported Housing Outreach Service, you can give feedback on this service.
AK Supportive Housing Outreach is a domiciliary care service, supporting people with mental health support needs in their own home.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection, one person was receiving personal care within the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
One person told us they felt safe at the service. Risk plans were in place specifically to support the person’s well-being and safety. There was enough staff to meet the person’s needs. Medicines were managed safely. Recruitment practices made sure appropriate checks were carried out before staff started working at the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had completed training to perform their roles effectively and felt supported in their roles.
Staff were caring and worked with the person to encourage their independence. Staff respected the person and encouraged them to be involved in activities that interested them.
The person using the service was involved in the care planning process and reviews of their care. A complaints process was in place. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included regular audits and feedback from the person using the service and staff.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 28 August 2020).
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
AK Supported Housing Outreach Service provides support to people in their own homes who experience mental health problems. At the time of inspection there were three people who used the service.
People using the service lived in individual rooms and had access to communal facilities within the location.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People's experience of using this service and what we found.
There were suitable numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff were appropriately recruited prior to commencing employment. Safeguarding concerns, incidents or accidents were thoroughly investigated and recorded. Medicines were well managed and staff took steps to prevent the spread of infection.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff received appropriate induction, supervision and support in their roles. People's healthcare needs were promptly met and staff supported them with any nutritional needs.
People were well cared for by a staff team that were passionate about their roles. People were supported to be as independent as possible, and were treated with dignity and respect.
Care records detailed people's preferences, and the provider offered a range of activities for them to participate in. People were supported to express their end of life wishes where necessary. Staff received appropriate induction, supervision and support in their roles. People's healthcare needs were promptly met and staff supported them with any nutritional needs.
The registered manager involved staff, people and relatives in the development of the service. Quality checks were routinely undertaken to monitor and improve care delivery. The provider worked alongside other agencies to meet people's needs.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
This service was rated good at the last inspection on the 1 September 2016. (Published on the 20 September 2016.)
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
AK Supported Housing Outreach Service provides support to people in their own homes who experience mental health problems. At the time of inspection there were 3 people who used the service.
The service demonstrated good leadership. The service is required to and did have 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.
Staff understood their responsibilities and how to keep people safe. People’s safety was ensured and support was provided in a way that intended to promote people’s health and wellbeing. A robust recruitment process was in place and staff were employed upon completion of appropriate checks.
Staff were supported to obtain current knowledge and skills which ensured they provided continuous effective care. Effective and safe systems were in place regarding the management of medicines.
Support staff provided support effectively to develop people’s confidence and independence. People’s rights were also protected because management and staff understood the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The registered manager knew how to apply such measures appropriately.
Staff supported people to receive healthcare services when required. Staff also worked with a range of external services, such as social workers, Police and GPs, to ensure care and support was delivered as requested by professionals.
People were supported in a person centred way by staff who understood their roles in relation to encouraging independence whilst mitigating potential risks. Staff were respectful and caring towards people ensuring privacy and dignity was valued. People were supported to increase independence and avoid social isolation.
The service had quality assurance systems in place however the registered manager identified that improvements to the robustness of systems could be made to drive service improvements. Although systems were in place to make sure that people’s views were gathered, analysis and action plans had not been created to make effective use of people’s views.
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they cared for. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints and whistleblowing investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are put into place to ensure that people's human rights are protected should their liberty be restricted in any way. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.
Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk, but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
The provider had safe and effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe working practice was identified and people were protected.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them. Social needs, physical needs and psychological needs had been identified in care plans where required. People told us that they had been involved in writing them and that they reflected their current needs.
Is the service caring?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us, 'The staff are excellent here. Without their support I would not be living in my own place. Most importantly for me they really respect my independence and have helped me to get this far."
People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed a yearly satisfaction survey. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to raise a concern or complain if they were unhappy.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a joined up way.
People completed a range of activities in and outside of the service regularly.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. We were therefore assured that the provider had taken steps to continually improve the service.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the ethos of the service.