Archived: Metropolitan Support Trust

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with one person who used the service and speaking with the relative of another person, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records. During this inspection we spoke with the scheme manager and two support workers, and received written information from the registered manager.

Is the service safe?

People using the service confirmed they were happy with the quality of their care and support and the relative we spoke with felt their family member was being cared for safely. Risks were assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure people's individual needs were being met. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood how to protect people from abuse. The service had procedures and practices in place to protect people from the risk of cross-infection. The staff personnel files we looked at contained all the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This mean that the service ensured recruitment practices were being followed so that suitably qualified and experienced staff were appointed.

Is the service effective?

People using the service and their representatives were supported to participate in the development of people's care plans. Care records reflected people's individual needs, choices and preferences and there was sufficient guidance on how people's care needs should be met. People told us they were happy with their care. One person told us they were happy with their care and support and liked everything about living at the service. The relative of another person said, "I always ask [my relative] if they are ok and [my relative] says they are being looked after nicely."

Is the service caring?

We did not observe people interacting with staff during our inspection as both people had chosen to participate in a social event in a community social event with staff. However the person we spoke with by telephone on the day after the inspection visit told us they felt happy with the staff. The relative of the other person using the service told us that the staff were kind and attentive and said, "the people who deal with [my relative] treat her well and [my relative] likes them all." The minutes for residents meetings showed that staff encouraged people and promoted choice, dignity and independence.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's needs were assessed before they received personal care. The relative we spoke with said they felt able to raise any concerns and they would always be addressed. People's care records had been reviewed regularly so any changes to their care were identified and included. The service sought people's views, including suggestions for how to improve the service, through annual surveys, review meetings and residents meetings.

Is the service well-led?

The scheme manager had day-to-day managerial responsibility for the service. They were experienced and knowledgeable about the needs of the two people receiving personal care. Staff told us they felt well supported by the scheme manager, who ensured staff were able to access mandatory and other training for their on-going development. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, for example, the scheme manager carried out spot checks and checked care plans.

The registered manager provided supervision and guidance to the scheme manager, however, there were no formal records to demonstrate how they monitored the quality of the service.

The person using the service told us their care workers showed respect and gave them options with choices. We looked at the person's care file with them and they remembered signing their consent to agreed support, risk assessments and the goals they would like to achieve.

There were suitable arrangements in place to ensure people using the service were safeguarded against the risks of abuse.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet the person's needs. Records showed that there were five regular members of staff who supported the person using the service.

There were quality monitoring processes in place. The person using the service was asked for their opinion of the agency through regular meetings and a yearly survey. The person and their relatives understood how to complain and any complaints were addressed appropriately.

The person using the service and their relative said they understood the care and choices available to them and they were involved in making decisions about the care and support they received.

We saw that the person's care needs were assessed and recorded in their care plan. Risk assessments had been carried out and information was updated as required.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and the person using the service said they felt safe.

We spoke with three members of staff about the training and support provided by Metropolitan Community Support. They told us they received regular training, supervision and an annual appraisal.

The person using the service and their relative knew how to make a complaint and were confident of how the service would manage complaints.