Creative Support - Warwickshire Services

Updated 9 May 2019

The inspection:

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

Inspection Team:

One inspector carried out this inspection.

Service and service type:

Murray House consisted of nine flats and staff provide a personal care service only within a specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Each person had their own flat. At the time of our inspection visit, five people received personal care.

Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. Each person has their own individual tenancy agreement and is the occupant’s own home and Creative Support provide their care package. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection only looked at people’s personal care service.

The service had 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.’

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did when preparing for and carrying out this inspection:

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as potential abuse, information from the public such as share your experience forms, whistle blowing concerns and information shared with us by local commissioners (who commission services of care). The provider was not sent a provider information return which gives them an opportunity to share with us what they do well and planned improvements. Through our conversations with the management and staff team, we gave them an opportunity to tell us and show us how what they described to us, translated into practice.

During our inspection, not everyone who received personal care, wanted to or was available to speak with us. One person spoke with us and we spoke with two relatives following our visit. We spoke with a senior operations manager, the registered manager, a supported living manager and two care staff.

We reviewed a range of records. For example, we looked at two people's care records and multiple medication records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the home. These included systems for managing any complaints. We looked at the provider’s checks on the quality of care provided that assured them they delivered the best service they could.

Updated 9 May 2019

About the service: Murray House is registered to provide personal care to adults with learning disabilities, autism or autistic spectrum disorders. People had a core number of agreed hours at set times and there was some limited flexibility to provide these hours when people may need them, outside of agreed times. Care and support was provided to people in a specialist ‘extra care’ housing service, meaning each person had their own tenancy/flat.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People were encouraged and supported by staff to make decisions about their care and how this care was delivered to them. Staff knew people’s preferred ways of communicating, to assist people to make their own choices.

•Relatives gave us mixed opinions about the consistency of care staff as the service used a high number of agency staff, although there were enough staff to support people. A relative felt staffing rotas, although improved, at times got in the way of certain activities when some staff had to finish their shift.

•Risks to people were managed in a way that kept them as safe as possible. Risk management guidelines helped care workers when supporting people. Risks which affected people’s daily lives, both in the home and out in the community, were documented and managed by staff.

•Staff were trained to administer medicines and they did so in a safe way, completing appropriate records which were regularly audited and checked.

•The provider arranged training for staff that met the needs of people using the service.

•Care plans were personalised, but needed improvements to reduce duplication and to make sure they corresponded with each other. This was planned for.

•People’s support hours were more structured so people knew how much time they had with staff, to achieve the things they wanted to do.

•People were supported to make daily living choices such as what they wanted to eat and how to maintain good mental and physical health.

•Staff were aware people’s needs could change, and understood when to seek advice and involve other health care professionals and services. Staff knew how to keep people protected from poor practice or abuse.

•People were treated respectfully and with understanding. Staff were keyworkers for people which helped them get to know people well. Staff’s feedback to us showed they took a genuine interest in people and they knew them well.

•Part of staff’s support was to encourage and support people to be as independent as possible. 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.

We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in five areas. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Murray House was published on 5 October 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The previous ‘good’ service provided to people had remained consistent.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.