Archived: Carlisle Community Services

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.

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

The provider had made improvements to the way the service was managed. There were governance and quality assurance systems in place. Audits were up to date and identified any lessons learnt following incidents and accidents so that action could be taken to keep people safe. There were enough staff to meet their needs.

Relatives told us they felt their family member was safe and staff understood the importance of following procedures to ensure safety and quality care. They told us the registered manager was very effective with communicating with them and they felt confident about raising any concerns.

Relatives told us they knew the staff and manager well. They received regular communications and were involved in care planning. They told us their family member was supported by a regular care team who knew their family member well.

Relatives told us staff supported their family member with medications correctly and safely and they were able to understand the person’s needs, for example, when they were in pain.

Relatives told us their family member was well supported with food and drinks, and staff understood the importance of hydration and a balanced diet.

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 overall (published 8 September 2018).

At our last inspection we recommended the service ensured a schedule of supervisions and appraisals was put in place. At this inspection we found the service had improved their provision of supervision of staff and this was taking place on a regular basis.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Recommendations

We made a recommendation around the provider’s monitoring of medicines records. At the time of inspection, best practice guidance was not followed, and this was not identified by the provider. The provider took action to amend practices when this was highlighted on inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered to a new provider, Richmond Fellowship, in July 2017.

This service provides care and support to people with mental health needs living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Not everyone using Carlisle Community Services received the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, such as help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. There were two people receiving personal care and support at the time of this inspection.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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.

People received safe care and were very comfortable with staff. Staff were trained in how to report any concerns and the organisation had clear protocols about protecting people.

There was very good continuity of care as the same small teams of staff had supported each person for many years. People received one-to-one support and staffing level matched this.

People needed help with managing their medicines and staff did this in a safe way.

Everyone supported by the service had been appropriately assessed. Staff were trained and experienced in supporting people, and keen to continue their learning.

A relative felt the service was very effective at meeting people’s needs. The service worked alongside other health and social care professionals.

Over the past year there had been few opportunities for staff to have supervision sessions with a senior member of staff. Supervisions support the professional development of staff and can also make sure people receive consistent care. Also, there had been few staff meetings so staff did not always have opportunities to review people’s care as a team. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and a relative had very good relationship with the staff as they had supported the same people for many years. A relative described staff as compassionate, caring and professional.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff respected people’s choices and decisions and supported them in a way which promoted their self-esteem and independence wherever possible.

People received a personalised service. Staff were very familiar with their individual preferences, lifestyles and needs.

Each person had person-centred care plans that described their individual needs and how they liked to be supported. These were created in an electronic format and staff reviewed them every three months. The provider needed to make sure that all staff had access to the records.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place and aimed to continuously develop its services.