We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because most of the people using the service had complex needs and limited or no conversational communication which meant that not everyone was able to tell us their experiences. We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by reviewing communication that the service had with these people's families, advocates and other care professionals. At this inspection we sought to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
Is the service safe?
We found that people's activities were individually risk assessed, as was the way they were cared for. Care workers knew the potential risks that people faced in given situations.
We observed how people either communicated with, or reacted to, the staff who were supporting them. From this we saw that no one showed distress when staff were providing their support.
During our visit we talked with staff about their understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff demonstrated a knowledge and awareness of both of these areas.
The service had clear procedures in place to receive, record and store medicines that people needed to take during their stay.
Is the service effective?
The six people who were using this service t the time of our inspection each had a personal care plan. We looked at the care plans for four of these people. The care plans covered personal, physical, social and emotional support needs. These plans were updated prior to each person's stay to ensure that information remained accurate.
Staff we spoke with were all able to describe how they recognised people's needs, and believed that the staff team communicated well which was beneficial for responding to people's needs.
Is the service responsive?
We looked at systems for monitoring day-to-day matters at the service. We found that the provider regularly reviewed the effectiveness of the service and included partner organisations in this process.
Is the service well-led?
Each of the four support workers we spoke with spoke positively about the range of training opportunities available to them. The provider kept records which showed what training courses staff had done, and when they did them. We looked at these records and saw that staff attended regular training which included refresher training on standard core skills that staff were required to have.
When we asked staff about supervision meetings with their line manager we were told that mostly these took place approximately every six weeks, which records confirmed.
Aside from the external quality audits, the manager was required to compile regular reports for the provider about the conduct and events that happen within the service for monitoring purposes.