The inspection took place on 17 July 2015 and was announced. We announced the inspection to make sure staff would be available at the office. In addition, people were often out in the local community and we wanted to make sure that people would be in and able to speak with us.
Azure Charitable Enterprises provides support and a wide range of services to people with learning disabilities. They also work with people with a history of mental health issues, physical disabilities, those within the autistic spectrum and people who have an acquired head injury. The provider has four regulated services which are registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); Hexham, Keele Drive, Newcastle and Azure Charitable Enterprises Washington.
We inspected Hexham, Keele Drive and Newcastle services between 14 and 22 July 2015. This report only relates to our findings at the Hexham inspection. Keele Drive and Newcastle reports can be found on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Azure Charitable Enterprises also have a number of supported businesses that provide employment and training opportunities for people with a disability. These include a garden centre and nurseries, a printing service, a landscaping business and a community enabling support service. These services are not regulated by the Care Quality Commission because they are out of scope of the regulations.
Hexham provides personal care to people who have a learning disability; some individuals also have a physical disability. There were 15 people receiving personal care on the day of our inspection. They lived in their own homes within the Tynedale area. Hexham provides staff to support people who lived in these houses.
Hexham was last inspected on 12 November 2013. We found they were meeting all the regulations we inspected.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they felt safe. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place. There were no ongoing safeguarding concerns. This was confirmed by the local authority safeguarding adults officer. Staff knew what action to take if abuse was suspected.
People, staff and relatives told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. In May 2015, there had been a change in funding which had resulted in the provider making several staff redundant. This included the deputy manager and three team leaders. Staff informed us that this did not impact upon people’s care and support.
There was a system in place to manage medicines safely. People told us that staff supported them to take their medicines.
There was a training programme in place. Staff were trained in safe working practices and to meet the specific needs of people who used the service. Many of the staff had worked at Hexham for a considerable number of years. This experience contributed to the skill which they carried out their duties.
People told us that they were happy with the service provided. We read the results from the most recent survey. All 12 people who had completed the survey stated that they were happy with the service provided. One person had written, “I would give Azure services a rate of 50 out of 10!”
We saw that people’s nutritional needs were met. People told us and our own observations confirmed that they were involved in the planning and preparation of meals.
The registered manager was aware of the Supreme Court judgement in relation to deprivation of liberty. The Supreme Court ruled that anyone who was subject to continuous supervision and not free to leave was deprived of their liberty. The registered manager was liaising with the local authority to ascertain what implications this ruling had on people who used their service.
People and the relatives told us that staff were caring. People were supported to maintain their hobbies and interests and housekeeping skills were encouraged to help promote people’s independence.
People, relatives and staff told us that they were involved in making decisions about the running of the service. They explained that there was open communication and their views were listened to and acted upon. Regular staff meetings were held. There was a complaints procedure in place. There were a number of feedback mechanisms to obtain the views from people, relatives and staff. These included meetings and surveys.
Some staff informed us that they felt frustrated by the recent changes in funding which had resulted in staff redundancies. They said that they recognised that the redundancies were not down to the provider but due to external influences and changes in funding. They said that they still felt valued by the provider. We spoke with people and their relatives and no one raised any concerns about the recent changes.
We reviewed a number of internal audits and monitoring reports which demonstrated that the provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service they delivered. The system was being reviewed following changes in the management structure at the service.