Archived: Birkenhead Project

Updated 18 April 2018

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 was 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 unannounced comprehensive inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector on 27 and 28 February 2018.

At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care to 24 people living in their own homes in the Birkenhead area.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at the statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We also contacted the local authority to gather their feedback about the service. We used this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

During the inspection we met and spoke with five people supported by the service and 8 people’s relatives. We spoke with 10 members of staff who held different roles within the service. This included the registered manager, team leader and deputy team leader.

We looked at a range of documentation at the service’s office in Birkenhead and at its head office in Wallasey. This included five people’s care records, medication records, five staff recruitment files, staff training records, accident and incident records, health and safety records, safeguarding and complaints records, audits, policies and procedures and other management records.

Updated 18 April 2018

This unannounced comprehensive inspection was carried out on 27 and 28 February 2018. This was our first inspection of the service since it had registered with CQC.

Birkenhead Project provides care and support to 24 people living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service is provided by Wirral Independent Living Services Ltd (WILS), who also run another supported living service from its head office in the Wallasey area of the Wirral. WILS aim to provide specialist support services to individuals who may have a range of complex needs, which may include a severe mental illness, learning disability, physical disability, alcohol dependency, substance misuse or homelessness.

The service had a registered manager, who had worked for the organisation for many years. 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.

During this inspection we found that the service was performing well in most areas. However, the service was not keeping appropriate records of the medication that people had been supported to take. Staff recorded that they had supported the person with their medication in the daily records but they did not specifically record each medication that they had supported the person to take. This was not in line with the relevant national guidance on managing people’s medicines in the community. We also saw that one person who had a medicines administration record (MAR) in place had two gaps in their records which had not been identified and investigated.

Staff, who had appropriate training and experience, provided people with appropriate support with their medication. The staff we spoke with told us that they were confident supporting people with their medication and assisted people to take the right medication at the right times. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s medication needs and people told us that the staff were very helpful with this.

We saw that people’s care plans were person-centred and provided staff with the information they needed to meet people’s needs. They also contained relevant risk assessments, which were reviewed regularly and gave staff the information needed to safely manage these risks.

The service had systems in place to protect people from abuse and staff demonstrated a good understanding of this when we spoke with them. They were able to demonstrate the actions they would take in the event of a person being at risk of harm. Records showed that safeguarding concerns were promptly and effectively managed by staff with oversight from the registered manager. However, we had not always been notified of safeguarding concerns as we should have been.

Staff were safely recruited and were supported with a thorough induction process. Criminal records checks, known as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) records, were carried out. We also saw that official identification, such as a passport or driving licence and verified references from the most recent employers were also kept in staff files.

Staff training records were well-maintained and up-to-date and there was a clear system to document and plan staff training. We saw that all staff had received training relevant to their roles and the staff we spoke with gave positive feedback about training provided at the service.

Staff had received regular supervisions and appraisals with senior staff. All staff told us that they felt well-supported working for the service and they received an appropriate level of supervision from senior staff.

People we spoke with told us that they received care from regular staff who were caring and knew them well. People also said that staff were always there for them if they needed them, either via their visits or at the office.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and to report on what we find. We saw that the registered provider had policies and guidance available for staff in relation to the MCA. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of this and recognised the importance of providing people with support that empowered them to live as independently as possible.

Information about how to complain was available to the people using the service. The people we spoke with told us they rarely had any issues but were confident they could voice any concerns they had with staff. The service had not received any formal complaints but the records we saw showed that any issues that had been raised were appropriately documented and addressed by staff. We also saw that the service invited feedback about the quality of its service in various ways. These included a suggestion box and feedback forms at the office. People supported by the service were also surveyed twice a year for their feedback.

The service had up-to-date policies and procedures in place to support the running of the service and these were regularly reviewed.