Background to this inspection
Updated
7 November 2018
regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 26 September 2018 and was unannounced.
The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector.
Before our inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about Creative Support. This included notifications we had received from the registered provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service. We also accessed the Provider Information Return (PIR) we received 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. This provided us with information and numerical data about the operation of the service. We contacted contract and monitoring officers who had involvement with the service for their feedback. No issues were raised.
We used this information to populate our planning tool. This is a document which helps is plan how the inspection should be carried out.
We spoke with four people living at the scheme, the senior carer, the registered manager the deputy manager, three staff and the regional manager. We looked at care plans for three people and other related records. We checked the recruitment files for two staff. We also looked at other documentation associated to the running of the service.
Updated
7 November 2018
We inspected this service on 26 September 2018.
Creative Support Ainscough Brook is an Extra Care scheme.
This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is [bought] [or] [rented], and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.
People lived in their own apartments which were accessible via a communal main entrance. There were some communal areas to each floor and a large lounge to the ground floor of the building.
At the time of our inspection there were nine people receiving support in their own apartments from Creative Support.
At the last inspection in September 2015, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Risk assessments were detailed and specific, and contained a good descriptive account for staff to follow, to enable them to minimise the risk of harm occurring to people who lived at the scheme. We saw there were detailed protocols in place around people for when their behaviour escalated and placed them in harm’s way.
There was enough staff employed by the service to help people with their day to day support needs.
There were systems and processes in place to ensure that people who lived at the scheme were safeguarded from abuse. This included training for staff which highlighted the different types of abuse and how to raise concerns within the infrastructure of the organisation. Staff we spoke with confirmed they knew how to raise concerns.
There was a process for analysing incidents, accidents and general near misses to determine what could be improved within the service provision. Some information was not always recorded, which we raised at the time with the registered manager.
There was personal protective equipment (PPE) available within the scheme, such as gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser.
Medication was well managed and only administered by staff who had the correct training to enable them to do this. Medication was stored securely within people’s own apartments.
The service was operating in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and consent was sought in line with people’s best interests. People’s mental health needs were assessed appropriately, and people were treated with equality and diversity which was evidenced in the outcomes of their support. Consent was also sought and clearly documented in line with legislation and guidance.
Staff had the correct training to enable them to support people safely. Staff said they were up-to-date with the training they were required by the organisation to undertake for the job and training records confirmed this. Staff engaged in regular supervision with their line managers, and had annual appraisals.
People were supported to make their own meals.
There was access to other medical professionals who often visited the scheme and were involved with people, and regular meetings with external healthcare professionals took place when needed.
People were treated as individuals, and their choices and preferences were respected by staff. Staff also described how the ensured they protected people’s dignity when providing personal care. Staff spoke with people and about them with warmth and sensitivity.
There was a complaints process in place which we were able to view as part of our inspection. There were no on-going complaints and there had been no complaints since our last inspection.
Staff undertook training to enable them to respectfully care for someone who was at the end of their life.
People’s support plans were person centred and contained a high level of detail about the person, their likes, dislikes, how they want to be supported and what they could do for themselves.
The vision of the organisation was person-centred and staff said they tried to encourage people to do as much for themselves as possible.
Quality assurance system were robust and sampled a wide range of service provision. We saw that were issues had been identified they had been subject to an action plan which was reviewed regularly and updated with the latest action points.
The service worked in partnership with the local community, as well as other professionals such as the local authorities, GPs and the housing provider.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.