This inspection was undertaken on 29 and 30 November and 1 December 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider notice as we wanted to make sure the registered manager was available on the day of our inspection.
SENSE - South East Supported Living Services provides care and support to people who are dual-sensory impaired or single sensory impaired with additional physical or learning disabilities. There were four people using the service at the time of our inspection who were living in two supported houses in Kent.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of 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 in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People using the service were well treated by the staff and showed us that they felt safe and trusted the staff who supported them.
Where any risks to people’s safety had been identified, the management had thought about ways to mitigate risks without limiting people’s independence and preferences.
The service was flexible and responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences and had introduced a number of outstanding initiatives to ensure that the care people received was responsive and that people’s disabilities were not a barrier to them living as full a life as possible. This included people taking part in a full and interesting number of activities that they wanted to and which, although came with a degree of risk, had a significant positive effect on their well-being.
Staff also spent time with people and helped them get used to certain medical procedures so they were not disadvantaged.
People’s care and support was planned proactively in partnership with them. Staff used innovative and individual ways of involving people in planning their care. Care plans included the views of people using the service and their relatives. Relatives told us they were kept up to date about any changes by staff at the office.
Relatives told us that the management and staff were quick to respond to any changes in people’s needs and care plans reflected how people were supported to receive care and treatment in accordance with their current needs and preferences.
People were actively encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints. People and their relatives had no complaints about the service but said they felt able to raise any concerns without worry. People were provided with novel ways to express and explore ways to indicate if they were unhappy with the service.
Staff could explain how they would recognise and report abuse and they understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe.
The provider was following appropriate recruitment procedures to make sure that only suitable staff were employed at the service.
Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the medicines that people they supported were taking and there were systems in place to monitor and audit the management of medicines in order to help reduce any potential problems.
People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the staff and told us they had confidence in their abilities and staff told us that they were provided with training in the areas they needed in order to support people effectively.
Staff understood that it was not right to make choices for people when they could make choices for themselves and people’s ability around decision making, preferences and choices were recorded in their care plans and followed by staff.
Staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and preferences and made sure people were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and hydration. People were actively involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and drink.
The service had a number of quality and safety monitoring systems designed to make sure people were safe and that everyone involved in the service could have input into how it was run and how well it was meeting its aims and objectives.
Staff understood how people communicated their views about the service and these views were sought on a regular basis. The provider used this feedback, along with input from relatives and staff to continually look at ways of improving the service.