Archived: Real Life Options - Nottingham

Updated 16 October 2015

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 on 21 April 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office.

The inspection team consisted of two 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. The Expert-by-Experience did not attend the office base of the service, but spoke by telephone with people who used the service and relatives of people that used the service.

Before the inspection, 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. Due to a technical issue this was not received by CQC. However, we asked the provider during our inspection if there was information they wished to provide us with in relation to this.

Prior to our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service, which included notifications. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the registered provider must inform CQC about. We contacted commissioners and asked them for their views about the service. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority.

We spoke with two people who used the service. We also spoke with six relatives of other people that used the service by telephone. We spoke with the two service managers, who were responsible for the day to day management of the service and seven care staff.

We reviewed records held at the service’s office, which include four people’s care records to see how their care and treatment was planned and delivered. We reviewed four staff employment records and other records which related to the management of the service such as quality assurance, staff training records and policies and procedures.

Updated 16 October 2015

We inspected this service on 21 April 2015 and the inspection was announced. This meant the provider and staff knew we would be visiting the service’s office before we arrived.

Real Life Options – Nottingham provides personal care and support to younger adults and older people living in their own homes or in care settings in Derbyshire and Nottingham. This includes people with learning disabilities, mental health or autism. At the time of this inspection there were 29 people using the service.

There was no registered manager in post. There were two managers at the service who were covering this position. 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 our previous inspection during February 2014, the service was meeting the regulations that we checked.

People using the service were protected from abuse because the provider had taken steps to minimise the risk of abuse. People who used the service told us they felt safe.

We had received information during February 2015 which suggested that sufficient staff were not available to meet people's needs. We looked into these as part of our inspection and found that there was currently sufficient staff to support people.

Recruitment procedures ensured that suitable staff were employed to work with people who used the service.

People and their relatives told us that staff treated them with dignity and respected their privacy.

Staff understood people’s needs and abilities and were provided with training to support them to meet the needs of people they cared for. People’s needs and preferences were met when they were supported with their dietary needs.

People were supported to take part in community activities of their choice, so that they were able to maintain and develop their hobbies and interests.

The provider’s complaints policy and procedure were accessible to people who used the service and their relatives. People knew how to make a complaint and were confident that their complaint would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

Arrangements were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, so that actions could be put in place to drive improvement.

Staff told us that they received support from the management team. The management of the service were open and transparent.