Background to this inspection
Updated
31 January 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 5 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given notice because the location provides a supported living and domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experiences of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
The provider had 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 reviewed the information we held about the service. This included information shared with us by the local authority commissioners. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority. We reviewed statutory notifications sent to us from the provider. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.
We contacted seven staff who worked at the supported living flats and seven relatives by telephone on 3 January 2017; before we met with the service manager on 5 January 2017. This was to obtain staff experiences of working for the service. We gained feedback from relatives about their experiences of the services provided to their family member.
During our inspection visit on 5 January 2017, we spoke with the service manager and operations manager. We reviewed three people’s support by looking at their care plan to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We checked whether staff had been recruited safely and were trained to deliver personalised care to people. We looked at other records related to people’s care and support which included medicine records, the service’s quality assurance audits and records of complaints.
Updated
31 January 2017
The inspection took place on 5 January 2017 and was announced. This is the first inspection of this service following its registration with us in March 2016.
Voyage 1 Limited is a large provider of care services. This location is registered to provide care and support to people in their own homes. The team leader told us they provided a 24hour supported living service to people living in their own flats. People had individual packages of care hours to meet their support needs; these ranged from 13 to 112 hours a week. Supported living services provided by Savoy Gardens offer personal care and support to people with physical disabilities or mental health support needs or a learning disability. At the time of our inspection visit, 15 people were supported in their own flats.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 registered with us for this service. During our inspection, we were informed that the registered manager for Savoy Gardens had transferred, in August 2016, to work at another Voyage 1 Limited service. The operations manager told us the registered manager was in the process of de-registering with us, as registered manager for Savoy Gardens. The service manager for Savoy Gardens informed us they had started their role in August 2016 and had submitted their application to us to become registered manager.
Staff knew how to keep people they supported safe. There were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety. These included procedures to manage identified risks with a person centred approach. Staff were trained to recognise signs of abuse and understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff knew how to report any concerns. The suitability and character of staff was checked during the recruitment process to make sure they were suitable to work with people at Savoy Gardens.
A few people had been assessed to self-administer their own medicines. Other people were supported by trained staff to take their medicines safely as prescribed.
The service manager understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and staff understood the importance of giving choices to people and respecting people’s decisions. Staff understood when they should work in a person’s ‘best interests.’ Staff worked within the principles of the MCA and understood they should never force people to do anything.
There were enough staff to meet the individual supported living packages of care that people had. Staff covered additional shifts on occasions and the service manager informed us they used ‘bank’ staff to cover shifts if needed. We met people in their flats and saw staff demonstrated a kind and caring attitude toward the person they supported. Relatives informed us they felt staff were caring toward their family member.
Staff received an induction when they started working for the service and completed training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. Staff felt their training gave them the skills they needed for their role. Staff knew individual’s well and had the knowledge of how to respond to their needs in line with the contracted package of care from the local authority. Information about the person and assessed risks was available for staff to refer to in each person’s health and social care plan.
Staff said most people would verbally communicate if they were unhappy about something and told us they would take action to resolve the issue. A few people relied on staff knowing them well enough to understand their non-verbal communication to know when something was making them anxious. Relatives knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint if needed. The service manager, team and shift leaders told us concerns were used as a way of learning and to improve the service provided.
Staff told us they were well supported within their team, by shift and team leaders and by the service manager. Staff said they were always able to contact a senior carer or management at any time for advice if needed. There were systems and processes to monitor and review the quality of the service people received. This was through feedback from an annual service review, provider monitoring visits, spot checks on care staff and audits undertaken at the service.