Archived: Burgess Autistic Trust

Updated 9 August 2017

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 01 June 2017 and was announced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and 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.

Before the inspection we looked at the information we held about the service. This information included statutory notifications that the provider had sent to CQC. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. The provider completed 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. We also asked the local authority commissioning the service for their views of the service.

Due to the nature of some people’s complex needs, we did not speak to people using the service directly. However, we observed people as they engaged with staff and completed their day-to-day tasks and activities. We spoke with five relatives, four members of staff and the senior co-ordinator. We reviewed records, including the care records of the six people who used the service, five staff members' recruitment files and training records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service such quality audits, accident and incident records and policies and procedures.

Updated 9 August 2017

This inspection took place on 01 June 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice we would be visiting to ensure someone would be at the service. This was a first inspection after the service moved to a new address.

At our last inspection on 13 and 14 April 2016 we found improvements were needed in relation to prescribed creams which were not stored securely in people's bedrooms, complaints were not always investigated and resolved within required timescales and systems to audit and check the service were not entirely effective as issues found at the inspection had not been identified by the provider.

At this inspection on 01 June 2017, we found improvements had been made in relation to management of medicines. Prescribed creams were stored securely in people’s bedrooms. Complaints were in investigated and resolved in good time and in line within the provider’s own timescales. Systems in place to check and audit the service were effective as areas that required improvement were identified and promptly addressed.

Burgess Autistic Trust provides personal care and support to people who live in the community and people who live in four supported living houses across South East London. On the day of our inspection there were 19 people using the service.

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. However, on the day of the inspection the registered manager was unavailable. Instead, we spoke to the service co-ordinator.

Safeguarding adult's procedures were in place and staff knew how to safeguard people they supported. Staff were aware of the whistle-blowing procedure and said they would use it if they needed to. Medicine records showed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals. Risks to people were identified and monitored and provided clear information and guidance for staff on how to support people. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's care and support needs.

Staff had undertaken a programme of mandatory training. Staff were knowledgeable, although some staff had not had received the most recent refresher training for safeguarding, epilepsy and fire training. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and acted according to this legislation.

People were supported to have a balanced diet. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health.

Relatives said staff were very caring. People’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality was respected and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

People and their relatives’ were involved in their care planning. Care plans were easy to follow and reflected people's individual care needs and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis.

People were supported to participate in a range of different activities. Regular service user meetings were held where people were able to feedback to the manager and staff about things that were important to them. Relatives knew about the complaints procedure and said they would complain if they needed to and believed their complaints would be investigated and action taken if necessary.

Regular staff meetings took place. Regular relatives meetings had not taken place for some time to obtain feedback, but the service would be reinstating these meetings. People and their relatives’ feedback had been sought about the service through annual surveys. Staff said there was an open culture in the service and that the management team were supportive.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions arising from audits had been dealt with quickly.