Background to this inspection
Updated
14 July 2016
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 16 May 2016 and was announced. This was because the service is a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure we could meet with people and staff when they would be available to speak with us. One inspector carried out this inspection.
Prior to the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR asks the provider for information about the service and any improvements that they plan to make. Prior to this inspection we reviewed all of the information that we held about the service including any statutory notifications that the provider had sent us and any safeguarding information received within the last 12 months. Notifications are made by providers in line with their obligations under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. They are reports of certain changes, events and incidents that affect the service or people using it. In addition, we contacted North Tyneside Safeguarding Adult’s team and Commissioning services. We used the information that these parties provided to inform the planning of our inspection.
As part of our inspection we spoke with two people, two of their relatives, two members of the support staff team, the registered manager and the nominated individual, who is the provider’s representative. We reviewed a range of records related to people's care and the management of the service. This included looking at two peoples' care records, two staff files, and other records related to quality assurance and the operation of the service such as audits and meeting minutes.
Updated
14 July 2016
Cambian Dilston College is a further education residential college based in Dilston, Corbridge, Northumberland, which provides educational services and personal care and support, for up to 52 students, all of whom are young adults with learning and/or physical disabilities. Cambian Dilston College-community properties is part of the college organisation where personal care was provided to people with mild learning disabilities who attended a different college in the Tyneside area, but who lived in their own home in the community. People could also visit and access the services and activities of Cambian Dilston College as part of their care package. This is the first inspection of this service since the provider took over the leadership of the college in June 2014. At the time of our inspection there were three people in receipt of care, all of whom lived in one property together in the community.
This inspection took place on the 16 May 2016 and was announced. This was because the service is a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure we could meet with people and staff when they would be available to speak with us.
A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the carrying on of the regulated activity since June 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.
People told us they liked the staff who supported them and felt safe in their presence. Policies and procedures were in place for staff to follow to ensure that they safeguarded people from harm or abuse and we saw that these were followed in practice. Staff had been trained in safeguarding and were aware of their personal responsibility to safeguard people.
Risks that people faced in their daily lives had been appropriately assessed and were regularly reviewed. Environmental risks in peoples' homes were also assessed and mitigated against. Emergency planning had been carried out and accident and incidents were appropriately managed and analysed to see if preventative measures were needed.
Staffing levels were determined by the number of people in receipt of care and the nature of their needs. Staff told us that staffing levels were well managed and they felt very supported in their roles. They said they received regular training and were inducted, supervised and appraised in line with the provider's policies. Staff recruitment procedures were robust and staff disciplinary measures were in place and applied appropriately. Medicines were well managed.
CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was appropriately applied and the provider understood their legal responsibility under this act. They assessed people's capacity when their care commenced and on an on-going basis when necessary.
People were supported to eat and drink healthily and in line with their tastes and preferences. They were involved in menu planning and had lots of choice about the foods they consumed. The ethos of the service was to support people to be as independent as possible and achieve the best possible outcome in line with their own abilities. Staff encouraged people to be independent, they respected their dignity and spoke with them in a professional but respectful manner. People and staff enjoyed good relationships.
Care was person centred and each person had goals and aspirations to work towards. Care was planned and regularly reviewed. Adjustments to peoples' care packages were made as needed. Social inclusion was promoted as people were encouraged and supported to pursue activities of their own choice such as swimming, shopping and football. People had good links with the local community, which staff supported them to access daily.
The culture of the service was positive and open and we received good feedback about the manager and the leadership of the service overall. Good quality assurance systems were in place and these ensured that the provider had a good overview of the service in order to analyse any concerns or issues raised and to drive improvements where necessary. There were no complaints received about this service within the last 12 months prior to our inspection.
Records held within the service were well maintained and confidentially stored.