Background to this inspection
Updated
3 January 2020
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We planned this inspection to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
This inspection was undertaken by one inspector.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care service. It provides personal care for people living in their own apartments.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection site visit because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.
The inspection was undertaken on 12 December 2019.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service from the provider since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
During the inspection
We spoke with three people who used the service and one relative about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with three members of staff including the registered manager and two care workers.
We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to corroborate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.
Updated
3 January 2020
About the service:
Your Life (Potters Bar) operates a supported living scheme in a modern and purpose-built private development in Potters Bar (Mandeville Court). The property consists of 53 flats privately owned and occupied by older people who also share some communal areas and facilities including dining rooms, lounges and gardens.
Not everyone using Your life (Potters Bar) receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection four people who lived at Mandeville Court received the regulated activity of ‘Personal care’.
People’s experience of using this service:
People felt safe receiving care from Your Life (Potters Bar). Risks to people`s health, safety and well-being were assessed and measures put in place to remove or reduce the risks. There were enough skilled and safely recruited staff available to meet people’s needs. People's medicines were managed safely. Staff had received training in infection control practices and personal protective equipment was provided for them. The registered manager took appropriate actions following incidents and learning was shared with staff. Risk assessments and care plans were updated after accidents and incidents to ensure that the measures in put place were effective.
Staff assessed and documented people's care needs and preferences, people’s support was based on this. People and relatives said staff were trained to do their jobs well. Staff received regular training updates and felt supported in their roles. People using the service did not need support to eat and drink. Staff and the management team worked well with external professionals including district nurses, GPs, mental health team and other care agencies. People said staff always asked for consent when supporting them. Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and had a good understanding of how to put this into practice.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff communicated with people in a kind and respectful manner. People and their relatives were positive about the care provided. People were consulted about changes to their care and regular reviews were undertaken of people’s support needs involving people, their relatives and other professionals as needed. People told us their privacy and dignity were respected and that staff supported their independence. Staff understood people’s needs and care plans were written in a way that promoted people’s dignity and independence.
People received care that was tailored to their individual needs, likes, dislikes and preferences. The service was not responsible for providing opportunities for activity and stimulation. However, the homeowner’s residents’ association and social committee ensured there was a good mix of social activity for people to enjoy. The provider had ensured that all documents could be made available in larger print and there was an option to get any documents produced in braille if needed.
The provider had a complaints and compliments policy. The registered manager told us they had not received any formal complaints. People and their relatives told us they would be confident to raise anything of concern with the management team. People had been encouraged to identify their preferences and put plans in place for when their health deteriorated. People were supported to stay in their own home if they chose to do so when they approached end of life and extra support was put in place to facilitate this if needed.
The registered manager and staff knew people and their families well. This enabled positive relationships to develop and good outcomes for people. The registered manager led by example. People, their relatives and the staff team praised the registered manager for leading the service well and demonstrating a clear ethos of caring and respect. The provider had developed systems to monitor and evaluate care provided to people. Effective systems were in place to learn from accidents, incidents and complaints. Where any shortfalls were identified, these were acted upon in a timely manner to promote people’s safety and wellbeing.
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was good (published 20 June 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.