We carried out a review of the data available to us about Freedom Support on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Freedom Support, you can give feedback on this service.
Freedom Support is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of inspection there were five people receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
There was a registered manager at the service, they had been registered since January 2016. The registered manager promoted a positive culture where people and staff could feedback about the service, so the quality of care could continue to improve.
People were involved in assessing and managing their own safety. Staff supported people to stay safe and understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm.
People were involved in their risk assessments and care planning. People’s risks were assessed at regular intervals or as their needs changed. Care plans informed staff how to provide care that mitigated these known risks. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way.
People were actively supported to live a healthy lifestyle. People’s health and well-being had been improved by the vigilance and actions of staff and the management team.
People received care from staff they knew. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs, choices and preferences. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. Staff gained people's consent before providing personal care.
People with a disability or sensory loss had access to information in a form that met their individual needs and preferences.
People were encouraged to achieve their goals and become more independent.
People were supported to express themselves, their views were acknowledged and acted upon. There was a complaints system in place and people were confident that any complaints would be responded to appropriately.
Staff were recruited using safe recruitment practices. Staff received training and support to enable them to meet people’s needs and carry out their roles.
The management team continually monitored the quality of the service, identifying issues and making changes to improve the care.
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.
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 3 February 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.
Freedom Support provides personal care to adults with learning disabilities living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were three people using the service.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 and their relatives told us that they felt safe while they received support from staff at Freedom Support. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm and to remain safe. There were procedures in place to manage incidents and accidents.
Risks associated with people’s support had been assessed and reviewed. Where risks had been identified control measures were in place to protect people’s health and welfare. We found that not all checks on equipment and property had been completed within the timescales recommended by the health and safety executive.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. They were recruited following the provider’s procedures to makes sure people were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes. We found that not all checks had been completed before staff started work. Staff received appropriate support through an induction and regular supervision. There was training available for staff to provide and update them on safe ways of working.
People received support with their prescribed medicines from staff who had completed training in this area. Records had been filled in correctly, however these did not record details of medicines that the person was being supported to take. Guidance was available to staff on the safe handling of people’s medicines.
People were encouraged to follow a balanced diet. We saw that people chose their own meals and were involved in making them. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. This included having access to healthcare services such as to their GP.
People were supported to make their own decisions. Staff and the registered manager had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 20015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before providing support.
People were involved in decisions about their support. They told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect. We saw that people’s records were stored safely and staff spoke about people’s support requirements in private.
People were supported to develop skills to maintain their independence. Care plans contained information about people, their likes, dislikes and preferences.
People were supported by staff who they knew well and who they felt listened to them. They received care that was centred on them as a person.
People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available so that people knew the procedure to follow should they have wanted to make a complaint.
People and staff felt the service was well managed. The service was led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.
People and their relatives had opportunities to give feedback about the quality of the service that they had received. Systems and processes were in place so that checks were carried out on the quality of the service that was delivered.