Archived: Mencap - North West Surrey SL Service

Updated 24 May 2016

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.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we had about the service. This included information sent to us by the provider, about the staff and the people who used the service and a 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. An expert by experience telephoned four representatives of people before the inspection to gain their views.

The inspection was announced. We told the provider three days before our visit that we would be coming. This was to ensure that the people we needed to talk to would be available. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager. We looked at three care plans, three recruitment files for staff, medicine administration records, supervision records for staff, and mental capacity assessments for people who used the service. We looked at records that related to the management of the service. This included minutes of staff meetings and audits of the service. After the inspection we spoke with one member of staff and two social care professionals.

The last inspection of this home was in 21 April 2014 where no concerns were identified.

Updated 24 May 2016

Mencap - North West Surrey SL Service provides a supported living service for people with a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder and physical disability. People receive personal care and support in their own homes. The service was supporting nine people in three supported living properties, six of which are shared with other people and three people were supported in properties that they lived in on their own.

The inspection was announced. We told the provider three days before our visit that we would be coming. This was to ensure that the people we needed to talk to would be available.

There was a registered manager in place who was present on the day of the inspection. 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.

People’s needs were met safely because there were enough staff at the service. Accidents and incidents were recorded and action was taken to minimise the risks of further incidents. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding adults procedures and what to do if they suspected any type of abuse. Staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work.

People’s medicines were administered and stored safely. Risks had been assessed and managed appropriately to keep people safe. The risk assessments for people were detailed and informative and included measures that had been introduced to reduce the risk of harm.

In the event of an emergency there was a service contingency plan which detailed what staff needed to do to protect people and make them safe.

People’s human rights were protected because the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) were followed. There was evidence of mental capacity assessments specific to particular decisions that needed to be made.

People were supported by staff that were knowledgeable and supported in their role. Staff had received all the appropriate training specific to the needs of people and their competencies were regularly assessed.

People were supported to eat healthy and nutritious meals. People at risk of dehydration or malnutrition had effective systems in place to support them. People had access to a range of health care professionals, such as the GP, opticians and dentist.

Relatives told us that the staff were caring, respectful and treated their family members with dignity. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in planning their care. We saw that care plans had detail around people’s backgrounds and personal history and included people’s views on what they wanted. Staff knew and understood what was important to people and supported them to maintain their interests.

People were supported by staff that were given appropriate information to enable them to respond to people effectively. Where it had been identified that a person’s needs had changed, staff were providing the most up to date care. People were supported to take part in activities which they enjoyed.

Relatives told us that they knew how to make a complaint and there was procedure in place for people to access if they needed to. This was in a pictorial format for people to understand. We saw that complaints were investigated appropriately.

The service was managed well. Staff said that they felt supported, valued and listened to. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. This included audits, surveys and meetings with people and staff.