Archived: Rochdale Branch Office

Updated 20 March 2018

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 was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 23 and 24 January 2018. Prior to the inspection we gave the service provider 24 hours’ notice, because the location provides a supported tenancy service for people with learning disabilities and we wanted to ensure that there would be someone available when we arrived.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector. Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we had about the service. This included notifications about safeguarding, accidents and changes which the provider had told us about. We also received a Provider Information Record (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.

We contacted a number of professionals who worked directly with Alternative Futures Group, including local authority commissioners, safeguarding teams, the clinical Commissioning Group and independent advocates.

During our inspection, we were able to speak to six people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager of the service and four other members of the management team, and eight operational staff including team leaders and support workers. We visited five supported tenancies, where we looked at how staff cared for and supported people. We also examined six care records and three medicine records, records relating to staff recruitment; supervision records, staff training plan and rota, and records about the management of the service.

Updated 20 March 2018

We inspected this service on 23 and 24 January 2019. We informed the registered manager that we would be inspecting the service the day before our arrival to ensure that someone would be in the office to assist with our inspection. This meant that the provider and staff knew we would be visiting before we arrived.

Alternative Futures Group (Rochdale Branch) provides care to people who live across Greater Manchester in supported tenancies and who require a range of support relating to their learning or physical disability, sensory impairment or mental health needs. The service is based in Rochdale, but provides support to people living in supported tenancies across greater Manchester. At the time of our inspection the service supported over 160 people.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 registered manager was present during the inspection.

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 this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to protect vulnerable adults from abuse and we saw that when safeguarding concerns were raised these were investigated appropriately. The service had good systems to allow a person centred response to allegations and outcomes which considered the views and wishes of people who used the service. Environmental risks were taken into consideration when planning services, and similarly specific risks to people who used the service were reviewed.

There were enough staff. Safe recruitment procedures ensured that people were protected from unsuitable staff, and people who used the service were involved in the recruitment process. There was a low rate of staff turnover, and we saw that training opportunities helped people who worked for Alternative Futures to develop their skills and improve their knowledge.

Care was person centred, and we saw in care plans consideration of personal wishes and preferences. Staff we spoke with understood issues of capacity and consent and people were supported to make meaningful choices. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service had developed good working relationships with health care professionals to ensure that people’s health needs were monitored and assessed.

Throughout our inspection we saw that people who used the service received person centred support from staff who showed genuine affection for the people they supported. People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect and when we visited them in their own homes we saw positive interactions and healthy relationships had been established. Cultural and religious needs were taken into consideration and people were involved in planning their own care. This was reflected in care plans. We saw evidence of regular review involving the person and their representatives, and staff would persevere to help people to reach their goals, for example, by exploring activities to widen social horizons. Independence was promoted and encouraged, and where issues which could hinder people’s independence were identified, creative solutions were sought to overcome the problem.

Alternative Futures had developed good systems to manage the service. The service had invested in intermediate technology systems to monitor service delivery and regular supervision and team meetings ensured staff were both kept informed and consulted on issues which affected the service. Written information was passed on to people who used the service using appropriate methods, such as signs and easy read leaflets. People were consulted about service delivery and their feedback was used to plan future service delivery.