Thurrock Lifestyle Solutions

Updated 1 February 2019

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 was an announced inspection and was conducted by one inspector on the 9 January 2019. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure that management would be available to assist us with the inspection.

Prior to our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the last inspection report and statutory notifications we had received about the service. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send us. We also looked at the provider’s 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.

During our inspection, we spoke with two people, one relative, two members of care staff, the manager, the nominated individual and group of directors. We looked at recruitment and support files, training records, arrangements for the management of medicines, a sample of policies and procedures and quality assurance information.

Updated 1 February 2019

Thurrock Lifestyle Solutions provides personal care and support to people who live in ‘supported living’ settings, either in their own self-contained accommodation or in shared accommodation. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission does not regulate the premises for supported living. This inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

At the time of our inspection, 20 people were using the service, of which three people received personal care as a regulated activity. We only looked at the service for people receiving a regulated activity.

At our last inspection in April 2016, we rated the service good. At this inspection, the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service embraced the values that underpin the ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service did not have a registered manager. At the time of our inspection, a new manager was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. 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 service had strong values and a clear vision to ensure disabled people live with no barriers and have a positive community experience, their aspirations met and have total choice and control over their lives. Staff empowered and enabled people to lead fulfilled and meaningful lives and were committed to providing the best possible service to people.

Safeguarding procedures were in place to protect people from harm and abuse. Individual risks to people had been identified, managed and reviewed. Where required, people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely. Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were suitable and of good character, prior to them starting work. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of people using the service, and people received care and support from a consistent team of staff. There were systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents. People were protected from the risk of infection.

Staff received training, support and supervision to enable them to fulfil their role. Where required, people were supported with their dietary needs and with access to healthcare services. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People received care and support from staff who were kind and caring. People's privacy and dignity was respected and maintained at all times, and their independence promoted. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care.

People received person centred care and support was focussed on what mattered to them. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. People were supported to achieve their goals and participate in activities which were important to them, including accessing the local community, and other services facilitated by the provider. Care plans contained information regarding people's preferences and individual needs and how people wished to be cared for. Care plans were reviewed regularly, or as and when people's needs changed. There were appropriate procedures in place for dealing with concerns and complaints.

The service was well-led. Staff were supported and valued by management and shared the provider’s philosophy of promoting an inclusive, positive person-centred culture. People and relatives were complimentary about the service. There were systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service and to understand the experiences of people who used the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.