Archived: Swanton Community Care

Swanton Community Care provides domiciliary care in the form of supported living services for young adults living with autism or a learning disability. At the time of the inspection they were supporting two young people who shared a bungalow.

The service had been without a registered manager since September 2015, however there was a manager in post who was currently completing their registration with the Care Quality Commission, they had been in post since August 2015.

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.

Supervisions were being held although they did not meet the providers own requirement to be held at least six times a year. The manager had been in post for five months at the time of the inspection and had ensured staff had attended one supervision during this time. Staff told us they did not feel well supported and had not had regular supervision or team meetings.

Safeguarding concerns and accidents and incidents were well recorded and the information was analysed for lessons learnt which included looking for triggers to behaviours and reviewing support strategies to ensure people were being cared for in the right way.

Risk assessments identified preventative measures and gave staff clear guidance on how to manage risks.

Staffing levels were set by commissioners of the service. Personalised rotas identified the correct level of support was being provided and ensured staff knew who they were supporting before they were on shift. The manager was actively reviewing the support provided to people to ensure they were neither over nor under supported. There were mixed views from staff as some did not think there were enough staff to meet people’s needs at the present time.

Medicines were managed and administered in a safe way, by staff who were trained and had had their competency assessed.

Staff attended appropriate training, including service specific training such as autism and non-abusive physical and psychological interventions which ensured they had the necessary knowledge and understanding to meet people’s needs.

People were actively supported and encouraged to be involved in decision making, and plans were in place which identified how staff should manage this. For example, by staff offering people two options at a time. People made their own decisions about mealtimes and were supported to have a healthy and well balanced diet.

The manager was knowledgeable about best interest decisions and people had authorisations in place which had been approved by the Court of Protection for areas of their lives which were being restricted in their best interests.

Staff approach was caring and compassionate. People were treated as adults and were supported and encouraged to be independent and to make their own decisions wherever possible.

Care records were individual and focused on the needs of that person identifying how people needed to be supported but also acknowledging areas of independence where people did not need support. Detailed daily diaries were kept and evaluated on a monthly basis. This information was then used by the manager to ensure care plans were appropriate to meet people’s needs.

Weekly activity plans were in place, which identified a range of things people enjoyed doing. Staff were respectful of people’s requests to change these plans and relatives told us people were always out doing something in the community.

Relatives knew how to complain but told us they had never felt the need to do so.

The culture of the service was focused around the needs of the people supported and ensuing they led a fulfilled and happy life, whilst also encouraging independence and the development of skills.

Audits were in place, however the manager stated these were targeted towards residential services rather than supported living and the organisation was reviewing the relevance and appropriateness of them.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.