This inspection was carried out by one inspector. During the inspection, they worked to answer five key questions; is the service safe, is the service effective, is the service caring, is the service responsive and is the service well-led?Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what was observed, the records looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People's care plans included risk assessments which highlighted risks in specific areas for example moving and handling. They contained actions to minimise these risks and keep people safe.
We inspected the staff rotas which showed that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs throughout the day. People received a consistent and safe level of support.
Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe the action they would take to ensure the safety of the people who use the service. We saw these procedures in action on the day of our visit when the fire alarm sounded.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). A recent Supreme Court judgement had widened and clarified the definition of deprivation of liberty. The manager was aware of this judgement and how it may impact on supported living. They had been in contact with the Local Authority DoLS team and were awaiting further advice.
Medicines were managed appropriately. There were systems in place to order, store, record and dispose of medicines in a safe manner. People told us they were supported to take their medicines as they wished.
Is the service effective?
People's privacy and dignity were respected. People told us that staff respected their wishes as well as their dignity and privacy: One person said; 'they (staff) ring the bell and wait, they never charge in.'
People all had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. People told us they and their relatives were fully involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan.
People we spoke with told us the staff were supportive and encouraged them to maintain their independence as much as possible. One person said they had gained independence since living at the service and having support.
People had access to a range of health care professionals. For example: Doctors, District Nurses and Opticians.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by friendly and attentive staff who spoke politely to them. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people, offering explanations when necessary. People we spoke with told us staff listened to them and took note of what they said.
Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. Our observations, discussions with people and the records we looked at, told us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected.
One relative we spoke with said: 'I never have to worry, staff are kind and caring, my X gets the best care possible.' A person who uses the service said '(I) can't fault the service; they do their best for you always.'
Is the service responsive?
People told us they were involved in reviewing their plans of care when their needs changed and if they wished they could involve their relatives.
The service had a system to assure the quality of service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed and action taken when necessary to address any shortfalls.
Trends in accidents and incidents had been monitored, if appropriate advice was sought and action taken to prevent reoccurrence.
Complaints were documented and investigated fully. Actions were taken appropriately and the outcome discussed with the complainant.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and professionals to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.
The service had quality assurance systems; we saw that any identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. Staff had a good knowledge of their roles and responsibilities and could seek advice from senior staff and managers.
Staff had a good understanding of the service and the quality assurance processes in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.