Background to this inspection
Updated
22 June 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 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.
The comprehensive inspection took place on 21 May 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit as this was a small service and we wanted to ensure members of the management team were available to speak with us.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
We looked at the information held about the provider and the service including statutory notifications and enquiries relating to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us. We used this information to help us plan this inspection.
We were advised that our visiting some people within their own home may cause the people potential stress and anxiety, as people were not comfortable in the presence of people they did not know. We therefore spoke with three family members of those using the service to ascertain their views about the service their relative received.
We spoke with the registered manager, two managers with line manager responsibility for specific staff and services and a senior support worker. We looked at the care plans and records, including medicine records of two people. We looked at the recruitment records of three staff. We looked at staff training records and minutes of meetings for staff. We viewed records in quality monitoring audits.
Updated
22 June 2018
MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning provides care and support for people living in their own houses and flats and for people living in a house of multi-occupation shared by other people in Leicester and Chesterfield. Houses in multiple occupation are properties where at least three people in more than one householder share toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities. The Care Quality Commission does not regulate the premises where people live.
Not everyone using MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning receives a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do so we also take into account any wider social care provided.
There were four people receiving a service and their packages of care varied with some people receiving support over a period of 24 hours, whilst others received support for differing number of hours on different days.
MacIntyre Leicester Life Long Learning was last inspected by the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2015. The overall rating for the service was good. This inspection has found the service has improved its rating from good to outstanding.
Family members of people using the service spoke positively about the service and the inclusive approach of developing and meeting people’s needs with their involvement. Family members commended and recognised a significant aspect of the service meeting their relative’s needs was the consistency of staff and the induction of staff in supporting their relative.
People receiving support from MacIntyre Leicester Life Long Learning received highly individualised person centred care. Support plans contained detailed and personalised care plans and we saw that people had been supported to have a full and meaningful life enjoying interests, taking part in new experiences and being active members of the local community. There was an emphasis on the need for good communication with a range of documentation being provided in way to assist people in accessing information.
The provider, registered manager and staff actively promoted a positive, inclusive and open culture, this approach has a positive impact on the quality of the service people received. The service worked in conjunction with other organisations to improve care for people with a learning disability. There were robust quality assurance systems in place which monitored the service, identifying potential areas for improvement, and actions were taken to improve these.
Staff were highly motivated and worked as a team and shared a common ethos of providing high quality, compassionate care with regard to people's individual wishes and support needs. Staff were valued, well supported and supervised by the management team.
Staff knew how to keep people safe, and how to report any concerns or incidents. The registered manager was proactive in learning from incidents and events, and had brought about changes to practices. There were enough staff to keep people safe, both within their home and the wider community. The registered manager and other staff were involved in individual projects to support their understanding and awareness of specific issues, which affected people’s well-being.
Risks to people were identified promptly and effective and robust plans were put in place to minimise these risks, involving relevant people, such as people's family members and other professionals. Comprehensive information was in place to guide staff, in the most effective approaches to use, which included Positive Behaviour Support, to enable staff to support people safely and reduce risk. Staff were knowledgeable about people's support and care and we observed staff putting into practice a consistent approach to their care.
People were supported to take their medicine by staff. People's capacity to make informed decisions about medicines had been assessed and best interest decisions had been made. People received their medicines as they had been prescribed. The provider had committed the service to reviewing people's medicine to decrease its use, in particular those used to manage people's behaviour and emotions.
People's needs were assessed and the assessment was used to develop comprehensive and individually tailored support plans. Staff took part in a robust induction programme with on-going training, which enabled them to provide effective care and support to people. Staff's performance was regularly reviewed through on-going assessment and supervision.
People were supported with daily living tasks such as grocery shopping, meal preparation and cooking as part of their support packages. Staff encouraged people to eat a healthy diet. People's dietary requirements along with their likes and dislikes with regards to food and drink were recorded within their records. People were supported to access a range of health care professionals and staff worked in partnership with external agencies to ensure and promote people's well-being.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrict way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had followed the Code of Practice in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We observed staff treated people as equals and individuals, offering them options whenever they engaged with them. Staff always endeavoured to enable people to maintain their independence and to make their own decisions.
People were supported by a consistent group of staff, in some instances staff had been specifically recruited to reflect people's preferences, which included common areas of interest. Positive and caring relationships between people using the service and staff were evident, which had a positive impact on people's quality of lives. People's wishes and views were acted upon, and people were supported by family members and others involved in their lives to assist them in making decisions about their care.