Archived: March Supported Living Scheme

Updated 5 January 2015

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

This unannounced inspection of the scheme on 22 July 2014 was undertaken by one inspector.

We spoke with seven people, five care staff, a Senior Support worker and the operations’ manager. We also spoke with two health care professionals. We also received positive comments from the scheme’s commissioners. Not everyone who used the scheme was able to talk with us. This was because some people had complex care and support needs. We were supported by staff, people’s care plans and other information to help us with our communication with people.

Before our inspection we were not able to look at the provider’s 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 that they plan to make. We did not receive it prior to our inspection due to the registered manager being off work. However, the provider sent us this document before this report was published and showed us that they had plans in place to continue improvements to the scheme.

We observed how people were cared for to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We looked at four people’s records and other records related to people’s care including lifting and hoisting equipment safety, the scheme’s service user quality assurance survey questionnaire, staff recruitment and supervision records, infection control records and medication audits.

Updated 5 January 2015

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, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the scheme.

This unannounced inspection took place on the 22 July 2014. At our previous inspection in April 2013 we found the provider was meeting the standards we looked at.

March Supported Living Scheme provides a scheme for up to 21 people with a learning disability. There were 14 people being supported by the scheme when we inspected. The scheme had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the scheme and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that people who used the service had their capacity to make day-to-day decisions formally assessed. At the time of our inspection no one living at the scheme had needed to be lawfully deprived of their liberty.

People’s needs were assessed and this information was used when compiling each person’s care plan. This enabled staff to support people using the scheme in a consistent way.

Staff’s knowledge of safeguarding vulnerable adults (SoVA) procedures showed us people could be confident any concerns would be reported to the appropriate authorities.

People’s privacy and dignity was consistently respected by all staff. This was by always ensuring that staff had obtained valid consent from each person before any care or support was provided, including knocking on the person’s door.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place in an appropriate format and if required, people could be supported to raise a concern or complaint. The provider had not received any complaints since our previous inspection in 2013.

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place. Records we looked at confirmed staff were only employed after all essential safety checks had been satisfactorily completed.

The provider had arrangements and systems in place to assess the quality of scheme it provided. This included reviews of people’s care using information in an appropriate format.