Archived: Wigan Supported Living Service

Wigan Supported Living Service provides a service to over 100 people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The service has 31 properties located in the Wigan area, ranging from single occupancy premises to multi-occupancy apartment blocks. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living so this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of the inspection 110 people were using the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the time of the inspection the service had two registered managers. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Although one service, Wigan Council had internally divided the properties into two locality’s (North Locality and South Locality) based on geographical location, with a registered manager allocated to each locality.

People using the service told us they felt safe. Relatives mirrored this view, reporting their loved ones received safe and effective care and support. The service had effective safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff had all received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults, which we saw was refreshed in the required timescales. Staff spoken with demonstrated a good understanding of how to report both safeguarding and whistleblowing concerns. Guidance was also clearly displayed in each property for reference for people using the service, their family members and staff.

Both staff and people using the service told us staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Rotas were completed centrally by staff with knowledge of people using the service and their needs. Appropriate systems were in place to cover any shortfalls, including the use of the council’s mobile workforce, who had the necessary training to effectively support people who used the service.

We saw robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff working for the service met the required standards. This involved all staff having a Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS) check, at least two references and full work history documented. Staff personnel information was stored centrally with the provider, with paper based personnel files located at the main office.

We saw medicines were managed safely and effectively. Staff received training and were observed administering medicines before being signed off as competent. People who wanted to take responsibility for managing their own medicines were supported to do so. We saw the service carried out regular audits to ensure medicines had been administered correctly and documentation completed accurately. Checks of documentation and stock levels showed medicines had been administered as prescribed.

Staff spoke positively about the training provided at the service. Staff told us regular training was provided and they had the opportunity to request additional training in areas of interest. Staff also confirmed they received supervision and appraisal on a regular basis, which helped support them in their role and provided an opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns as well as their future goals.

Both people using the service and relatives spoke positively about the standard of care provided. People told us staff were friendly, caring and kind and treated them with dignity and respect. We saw people were fully involved in all aspects of their care and encouraged to maintain or achieve as much independence as possible. People using the service were involved in choosing what they wanted to do and when and where they were supported. People were also encouraged to set and complete their own personal goals and aspirations.

We looked at eight care plans, which contained detailed and personalised information about each person. Care plans also contained comprehensive risk assessments, which were regularly reviewed and helped to ensure people’s safety was maintained. We saw people had been involved in planning their care and were asked for their feedback through completion of service reviews, tenant meetings and questionnaires.

People had been supported to engage in a wide range of activities. Some of the properties organised weekly activities which people could participate in and each had a communal area, where people could meet up and socialise. People told us they could plan and attend activities of their choosing including their use of one to one care hours.

The service had a range of systems and procedures in place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service. Audits were carried out internally by the team leaders of each property which included a quarterly comprehensive audit of service provision as a whole.

Staff meetings took place on a regular basis, giving staff the opportunity to discuss their work and raise any concerns about practices within the service. Staff spoke positively about the support provided by the registered managers, who were both described as supportive and approachable.