YourLife (Urmston)

Yourlife (Urmston) is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to people in their own homes. The service is based within a private assisted living housing development.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection there were three people receiving support.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

The service had appropriate systems and procedures in place which sought to protect people from abuse. People told us they felt safe. Accidents, incidents and untoward events were reported and recorded appropriately and in a timely way. Where support with medicines was part of an assessed need, these were managed safely; this included systems for ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

Before a person started using the service their needs were comprehensively assessed. The assessment included people's likes, dislikes, personal preferences and understanding people who were important. Staff received effective induction, training and supervision to ensure they were skilled and competent to carry out their roles. Feedback from people who used the service confirmed they felt staff were well trained. Staff told us they felt supported and were sufficiently trained to fulfil their roles.

The service benefited from an onsite bistro and dining area. A wide range of hot and cold meals, snacks and drinks were available for people to buy.

Support was provided to people around eating and drinking where this was part of an assessed care need. Staff were trained in food safety and were familiar with people's needs and preferences.

The housing development benefited from communal facilities that were well presented, spacious, with modern furnishings and fittings and decorated to a high standard. People had access to a communal garden and patio area.

We observed interactions between staff and people in communal areas and found these to be kind, caring and respectful. Staff working in the service were confident with difference. Equality and diversity training had been provided. Staff understood the importance of involving people in decisions about their care and people told us they were involved in discussions and plans about their ongoing care and support needs.

The service benefited from an experienced registered manager who was committed to providing high-quality, person-centred care. The registered manager led by example and staff clearly mirrored these values. This had a positive impact throughout all aspects of the service.

Systems and processes for audit, quality assurance and questioning of practice were operated effectively.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 03 July 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 reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The service had a registered manager, who had previously trained as a nurse. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and training records we viewed indicated that staff received annual training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. Recruitment checks had been carried out on new staff to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

There were procedures in place to ensure medicines were administered correctly.

New staff had completed an induction programme and shadowed senior staff until they felt confident to work unsupervised. Staff had undertaken a variety of training which equipped them with the skills and knowledge required for their roles. Staff received regular supervision which gave them the opportunity to discuss their training requirements and any concerns they had around their work.

Staff sought consent before undertaking care and support and offered choice to those they cared for. This showed the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and were happy with the care and support they received from them. Care plans, which were detailed and person-centred, were reviewed regularly to ensure they contained up-to-date information to guide staff.

There was a complaints procedure in place, although no recent complaints had been received.

Regular staff meetings were held to discuss issues around the service and provide feedback to staff.

There were a range of policies available to guide staff in their work.

A range of audits was carried out regularly to monitor the quality and standard of service provided.