Archived: Voyage (DCA) (North East)

Updated 15 July 2016

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.

The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a supported living service for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

This inspection took place on 11 and 12 May 2016. The inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors on the first day and one adult social care inspector on the second day.

Before the inspection 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 any improvements they plan to make. Before our visit, we reviewed the information included in the PIR along with other information about any incidents we held about the service. We contacted the commissioners and safeguarding adults officers of the local authority to gain their views of this service.

During the inspection we visited three shared houses and spent time with the people who lived there. We spoke with the registered manager, operations manager, four team leaders and five support workers. We also viewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. These included the care records of five people, the recruitment records of four staff, training records and quality monitoring records.

Updated 15 July 2016

At the last inspection of this service in November 2015, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements. This was because safeguarding concerns had not always been reported or investigated. Risk assessments about people’s individual needs were either inaccurate or not in place and health and safety shortfalls had not been addressed. Recruitment checks of new staff had not always been carried out so the provider had not made sure that staff were suitable to work with the people who lived there. Staff had not understood people’s rights about their mental capacity to make their own decisions. People’s individual care records were not accurate so people might not have received the right care. Also, the provider’s quality monitoring processes were not effective in identifying or addressing these shortfalls.

After the inspection the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements.

We carried out this comprehensive inspection on 11 and 12 May 2015 to check whether the provider had addressed these breaches. We found there had been improvements in all these areas.

Voyage (DCA) (North East) offers a supported living service to people within their own homes or shared houses. It offers personal care to people within the North East area. People who use the service have learning disabilities, autism and/or physical disabilities. They are supported with personal care, medicines, cooking, shopping, activities and other day to day tasks. At the time of this inspection 24 people were using the service.

Since the last inspection a registered manager had been appointed. 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.

People who were able to express a view told us they felt safe using the service. Some people said it was “better” than it had been at the last inspection. Staff told us, “It’s a much happier place for people.”

Since the last inspection we found that the provider had reported any safeguarding issues to the relevant local authorities and had notified CQC of these. Staff had training in safeguarding and there was a ‘hotline’ for them to use if they were concerned about any poor practice. Staff said they were confident about reporting issues.

There were enough staff on duty to support the people who lived there. The provider carried out checks to make sure only suitable staff were employed. Medicines were managed in a safer way for people and staff had had training in specific emergency medicines.

People and relatives we spoke with felt staff were competent to provide the right support. Staff felt well trained and supported in their roles. Staff now understood and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This meant safeguards were in place for people who did not have capacity to make some significant decisions. All the people were encouraged to make their own day to day choices.

Staff were knowledgeable about individual people and were able to spot any changes in their well-being. There were now personalised ways of supporting people with their individual behavioural needs. Staff liaised with other health agencies to support people with their healthcare needs.

Since the last inspection people were more involved in choosing, planning and shopping for their meals. People were also encouraged to have a healthy lifestyle to help their nutritional well-being.

The people we spoke with who were able to express a view said they were “happy” with the support they received. One person told us, “I get on well with the staff.” Another said, “I like living here, it’s good. The staff are nice.”

Staff felt the service was a “much happier place” for people. One staff member told us, “They’ve all got a life now." One staff member commented, “It was very stressful through all the changes but the staff who stayed are really attached to people and that’s why we stayed.”

There had been improvements to people’s care records and these were now up to date and personalised. All the support plans for people who used the service had been reviewed by the care staff members who knew the person best. People had been involved in planning their own support for the future.

In the past three months the provider had put into place a structured quality audit system to continuously monitor the quality and safety of the service. However it was too early to tell if this would be effective in driving sustained improvements.

Since the last inspection a new manager had registered with CQC. People said the registered manager was “absolutely champion” and “really great”. They said she visited the different houses and asked if everything was alright. People now had the chance to discuss their views of the service at house meetings.

Staff said the registered manager was open and approachable. There were now regular staff meetings for staff to share ideas.

All the people, staff and visitors we spoke with said there had been significant improvements to the running of the service since the last inspection.