Archived: Northallerton

Updated 13 July 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.

This inspection took place on 31 May 2016 and was announced. The inspection team consisted of one Adult Social Care Inspector. At the inspection we spoke with the manager and four support workers.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who used the service and their relatives. We visited two supported living schemes to speak with people. We spoke with five relatives over the phone.

Following the inspection we also spoke with a member of the speech and language therapy team and a district nurse from the learning disability team, who both worked alongside the registered provider to support the people who used the service. They were both complimentary about the service and had no concerns.

Before the inspection we checked the information that we held about registered provider. For example, we looked at safeguarding notifications and complaints. We also contacted professionals involved in supporting the people who used the service, including commissioners, and no concerns were raised.

Prior to the inspection we contacted the local Healthwatch and no concerns had been raised with them about the service. Healthwatch is the local consumer champion for health and social care services. They gave consumers a voice by collecting their views, concerns and compliments through their engagement work.

The registered provider completed a provider information return (PIR) prior to our inspection. This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information when planning our inspection.

We also reviewed; four support plans, four daily records, staff training records, five staff recruitment files, medicine administration records, accident and incident reports, safety certificates, internal communications, quality surveys and records relating to the management of the service, such as audits, policies and minutes of team meetings.

Updated 13 July 2016

The inspection took place on 31May 2016. The inspection was announced as The Royal Society of Mencap Northallerton provides domiciliary care to people in their own homes. We gave the service 24 hours notice to make sure there was someone at the office for the time of our inspection.

The Royal Society of Mencap Northallerton is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care and support to people with learning disabilities and autism, who live in their own homes or supported living. The service covers the Darlington, Gateshead and County Durham area and at the time of our inspection the service supported 31 people.

At the time of our inspection the service didn’t have 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 the time of our inspection there was a manager in place managing the service who wasn’t registered with CQC. The manager had contacted CQC regarding registration, but was still in the first stage and hadn’t yet submitted an application.

We spoke with support workers who told us that the manager was always available and approachable. We spoke with people who used the service on the day of the inspection and their relatives who also told us the manager was accessible and open.

We saw that people’s prescribed medicines and topical medicines were recorded when administered. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with the manager about how staff were trained to administer medicines. We found that the medicine administration, recording and auditing process was safe.

From looking at people’s support plans we saw they were person centred. ‘Person-centred’ is about ensuring the person is at the centre of everything and their individual wishes and needs and choices are taken into account. The support plans made good use of personal history and described individual’s care, treatment, wellbeing and support needs. These were regularly reviewed and updated by the support workers and the registered manager.

People who used the service received person centred support and their individual needs were respected and valued.

Individual support plans contained risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care records we viewed also showed us that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary. For example, their doctor and care manager.

Our conversations with people who used the service and their relatives showed us that people who used the service were supported in their own homes by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their individual needs and wishes.

We looked at the recruitment process and found that relevant checks on staff took place and this process was safe. People who used the service chose their own staff and together with their families were a major part of the recruitment process.

People were encouraged to plan and participate in activities that were personalised and meaningful to them. People were supported regularly to play an active role in their local community, which supported and empowered their independence including accessing local facilities and the wider community.

We saw a compliments and complaints procedure was in place. This provided information on the action to take if someone wished to make a complaint and what they should expect to happen next. People also had access to advocacy services and safeguarding contact details if they needed them.

We found the service had been regularly reviewed through a range of internal and external audits. We saw action had been taken to improve the service or put right any issues found. We found people who used the service, their representatives and healthcare professionals were regularly asked for their views about the service via surveys and ‘service reflection events,’ where people came together to discuss their views and have their say about the service.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. Any applications must be made to the Court of Protection. At the time of this inspection applications had been made to the Court of Protection and several others had gone through the process.