Background to this inspection
Updated
10 November 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 1 October 2017. The inspection was announced, which meant the provider knew we would be visiting. This is because we wanted to make sure the provider, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to support the inspection. This inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Before the inspection, the provider completed 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.
On the day of the inspection we spoke with one person, five members of staff and the registered manager. Following our visit to the service we spoke with two relatives of people who used the respite facility. A number of people who used the service were unable to tell us of their experience of living in the house. We observed interactions between staff in communal areas.
We looked at three people’s care and support and medicine administration records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service such as the daily communication records, audits, supervision and training records.
Updated
10 November 2017
Consensus Support is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for eight people with learning disabilities and complex needs. The service also has the facility to provide respite care. At the time of our visit there were eight people living at the service.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good:
People’s rights were in the main being upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act [MCA] 2005. This is a legal framework to protect people who are unable to make certain decisions themselves. We noted that when conducting capacity assessments the service adopted a blanket approach for each person’s care requirements. One person’s capacity assessment covered all aspects of their care such as personal care, finance, eating and drinking, medication and sleep system. Care plans are currently being reviewed by the registered manager to ensure that the arrangements for people’s care or treatment evidence best interests decision-making in line with the MCA, based on decision-specific capacity assessments.
Risks to people were assessed and where required a risk management plan was in place to support people manage an identified risk and keep the person safe.
Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and this ensured people were supported safely. People told us they felt safe living at the service.
People received effective support from staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. The provider ensured that new staff completed an induction training programme which prepared them for their role. Staff received on-going training to enable them to fulfil the requirements of the role. Staff were supported through a supervision programme. Supervision is where staff meet one to one with their line manager to discuss their work and development.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to external health care professionals when required.
Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for.
Support provided to people met their needs. Records highlighted information about what was important to people and how to support them . People were involved in activities of their choice.
There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Staff described the registered manager as supportive. People and their representative’s provided positive feedback about the service and the support received.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.