Creative Support - Teesside Services

Updated 21 March 2018

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 20 February 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure staff would be available to assist with our inspection.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

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.

We contacted the commissioners of the relevant local authorities, the local authority safeguarding team and other professionals who worked with the service to gain their views of the care provided by Creative Support - Stockton Homecare & Middlesbrough Services.

During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service and five relatives of people using the service. We looked at three care plans, three medicine administration records (MARs) and handover sheets. We spoke with four members of staff, including a director from the provider, the registered manager, an area manager and a support co-ordinator. Before our inspection we sent questionnaires to support workers asking them for feedback on the service, and received 11 responses. We looked at two staff files, which included recruitment records. We also looked at records concerning the day to day running of the service.

Updated 21 March 2018

This inspection took place on 20 February 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure staff would be available to assist with our inspection.

At the last inspection in February 2016 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, younger disabled adults and people with mental health conditions. The service also provides care and support to people living in three ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of our inspection 22 people were receiving personal care from the service.

There were two registered managers in place. One registered manager was responsible for the domiciliary care agency part of the service and the other registered manager for the ‘supported living’ part. 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.

Risks to people using the service were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. Accidents and incidents were monitored to see if lessons could be learned to improve people’s safety. Medicines were managed safely. People were safeguarded from abuse. People were usually supported by stable staffing teams and support workers they knew. The provider’s recruitment processes minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed. Policies and procedures were in place to promote infection control.

Staff completed a wide range of mandatory training and were supported with regular supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this. People received support with managing food and nutrition and to access external professionals to monitor and promote their health.

People described staff as kind and caring and spoke positively about the support they provided. Relatives also spoke positively about the support staff provided. People and their relatives said staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s independence was promoted. Policies and procedures were in place to support people to access advocacy services where needed.

Care was based on people’s personalised needs and preferences. Policies and procedures were in place to investigate, respond to and learn from complaints. People were supported to access end of life care where needed.

Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service and most said it was well-led. People and their relatives knew the names of the registered managers and said they were approachable and easy to contact. The provider and registered managers carried out a number of quality assurance audits to monitor and improve standards at the service. Feedback was sought from people and staff. The registered managers had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications.