Archived: Pooleview Support Services

Pooleview Support Services provides care and support to people living with learning disabilities and autism in a ‘supported living’ setting so that they can live as independently as possible. 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. At the time of our inspection, the provider was supporting three people with their personal care needs.

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. There was not a registered manager in post. This was because the registered provider managed the service and there was a small staff team providing care and support to people.

People were safe from harm and abuse. Staff had a good understanding of abuse and how to report concerns both within the organisation and outside of it if required. Individual risks were assessed and staff knew how to minimise risks to people. People received their medication as prescribed.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People had access to food and drink and staff encouraged people to ensure they had sufficient amounts. People had access to healthcare professionals when required and were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People said they liked the staff team and we saw they had built up close relationships with them. People were supported to make their own choices and decisions. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were treated with dignity and respect.

People’s needs were assessed and reviewed with people and relatives regularly. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and knew people well, including their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff supported people with activities and to go out into the community when they wished. We saw people had a good relationship with the provider and felt able to give feedback and input into the service.

Staff felt supported by the provider and had the opportunity to give feedback for improvement. Quality monitoring systems were in place but required further improvement to ensure recording of information was robust and highlighted areas for development.

Poolview Support Services provides personal care to people in supported living. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting three people with learning difficulties who shared a house together.

There was a registered manager in place who was present during our inspection. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe. Staff were aware of the need to keep people safe and they knew how to report allegations or suspicions of poor practice.

The nominated individual and registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of care however they had had not fostered a culture of continuingly trying to identify means to improve the service.

People who needed support with their medicines were supported appropriately. Staff could access medication which was suitably stored and knew how to dispense it safely. There were regular checks to make sure this was done properly.

People were supported by staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge they needed to meet their care needs.

People were supported by staff who knew their preferences and promoted mealtimes as sociable experiences. Staff took an interest in ensuring people had access to food and drinks they liked.

People were supported to have their mental and physical healthcare needs met. The registered manager sought and took advice from relevant health professionals when needed.

People said staff were caring and had built up close relationships with the members of staff who supported them. People were involved in deciding how they wanted their care to be delivered however staff were unsure how to support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs and delivered care in line with peoples’ wishes. Staff supported people in a range of activities that improved their conditions and overall well-being.

People had access to a complaints system and the registered manager responded appropriately to concerns. Monitoring of informal complaints was not robust to prevent similar issues from reoccurring.

There was effective leadership from the registered manager and care manager and senior members of staff to ensure that staff in all roles were well motivated and enthusiastic.

We spoke with the registered manager and three members of staff.

On the day of our inspection the three people who lived at the home were out at college or work.

After the inspection we spoke with one person who used the service. We talked with two family members of someone who used the service and one professional who knew the service well.

One person who used the service told us: 'I'm fine. I feel very happy. I am happy living in the house'.

We found that people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

We found that the care and welfare needs of people who used the service were being met.

We saw that appropriate arrangements were in place to manage people's medicines.

We found that there were processes in place to ensure staff were suitably trained and supported.

We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

After the inspection we contacted people's relatives and other staff to obtain their views about Pooleview Support Services - Brownhills.

People using the service and their relatives told us they were happy with the service they received and the staff who worked with them.

One person told us, 'I like it here and I like the staff.'

A relative told us, 'I can't fault the staff. [My relative] seems happy, so I am quite happy.'

We looked at five outcomes to assess whether people were involved and participated in the service they received; whether care was provided appropriately; whether the service could adequately ensure people's safety; whether correct procedures had been followed in the recruitment of staff and whether there was a system for ensuring ongoing quality assurance at the agency.

We found that Pooleview Support Services - Brownhills was compliant in all five outcomes.