Archived: Voyage (DCA) North Yorkshire

Updated 11 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.

This inspection took place on 23 November and 1 December 2016 and was announced. The registered manager was given 48 hours’ notice because this is a domiciliary care service and we needed to make sure someone would be available at the office to meet with us and we wanted to ask people who used the service if they would be available to meet with us.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, we received a completed Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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 PIR and other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC. We sent questionnaires to three people who use the service, three relatives, 14 staff and 11 community professionals. We contacted commissioners from two local authorities who contracted people's care. We used this information to plan the inspection.

During the inspection we visited the office and one of the shared houses. We reviewed documents and records that related to people’s care and support, and the management of the service such as training records, audits, policies and procedures. We looked at three support plans and associated documentation. We checked recruitment and training records for four staff. We spoke with four people who used the service. We spoke to the operations manager, the registered manager, and three support workers.

Updated 11 January 2017

This inspection took place on 23 November and 1 December 2016. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice of our visit so that people would be available to speak with us.

The last inspection took place on 10 and 22 September 2015. At that inspection Voyage (DCA) North Yorkshire we made two recommendations regarding staffing and quality assurance. We found that the overall rating for this service at the time to be requires improvement.

Voyage (DCA) North Yorkshire is registered to provide personal care to adults living with a learning disability. People are supported by staff to live in small groups in independent supported living schemes. Different levels of support are provided over the 24 hour period according to people's individual requirements. During our inspection the service supported 13 people who lived in four shared houses.

There was a registered manager. 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.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made. Additional staff had been recruited to ensure people received consistent care and this enabled them to take part in their individually planned activities and enhanced their overall well-being.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics. The registered manager had a good understanding of safeguarding processes and followed these in practice. Thorough recruitment processes were followed before staff started work. This reduced the risk of unsuitable people being employed.

Risk assessments and risk management plans were in place to protect people from avoidable harm. Assessments contained detailed guidance for staff about how to minimise the risk of harm whilst protecting people’s rights and freedoms

Medicines were safely managed. Medicine records were completed correctly, and checks of these were undertaken on a regular basis. This meant if any errors were noticed they could be addressed quickly.

People were supported by well trained, skilled staff. Staff supervision, meetings and appraisals were taking place on a routine basis, which meant staff had the opportunity to reflect on and develop their practice.

We found that people were encouraged to exercise choice and control in every aspect of their lives. People were supported to make their own decisions wherever possible, and during our visit we observed staff supporting people to choose what they did with their time. Where people were unable to make a decision there was a best interest decision recorded within their support plan and we saw the person and relevant people had been involved in making this. This meant people were given the opportunity to be involved in decision making and decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

There was access to a varied and balanced diet and people were encouraged to be involved in the planning and the preparation of their meals. People were supported to access their health care appointments to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

Good personal and professional relationships existed and we observed staff took care to maintain people’s privacy and dignity. People told us that staff were caring, kind and friendly. We saw that staff were focused on the person and what was important to them.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported. This was confirmed in the feedback we received about the service. People had comprehensive care and support plans in place. These guided staff on people’s preferred approach to meet their care needs. For example, one person liked staff to pass them their medicines to take independently.

People were supported to follow their individual interests and pursuits including working in local community organisations. People understood how to make complaints and information on how to make a complaint was displayed.

There was clear leadership and management at this service. The registered manager was described as approachable and part of the team. Senior managers promoted the values of the service and we saw that they led by example.

The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. People were encouraged to discuss future goals and aspirations and how they were going to achieve these.