Archived: Autism Plus

Updated 17 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’

This comprehensive inspection took place on 31August and 18 September 2017 and was announced. We gave short notice of the inspection in line with our methodology, as it was a respite service and we required the appropriate staff to be available. The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to the inspection visit we gathered information from a number of sources. We looked at the provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the provider. We also obtained the views of professionals who may have visited the home, such as service commissioners, healthcare professionals and the local authority safeguarding team.

At the time of our inspection there were 13 people who used the service. During our visit we spoke with two people who used the service at the office, we also visited two people in their own homes with the new manager. The expert by experience spoke on the telephone with five relatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with two team leaders, two support workers, the new manager, the regional manager and the provider.

We looked at documentation relating to three people who used the service and three staff, as well as the management of the service. This included people’s care records, medication records, staff recruitment, training and support files, as well as minutes of meetings, quality audits, policies and procedures.

Updated 17 October 2017

At the last inspection in July 2014 the service was rated Good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Autism Plus' on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At this inspection on 31 August and 18 September 2017 we found the service remained Good. The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

Autism Plus supports people in their own homes and provides supported living for people with autistic spectrum conditions. The agency office is based in Sheffield city centre. At the time of our inspection 13 people were using the service. Since our last inspection the service has changed its statement of purpose and only provides care and support for people requiring over 28 hours a week.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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. However, the provider had appointed a new manager and at our visit on 18 September 2017 the new manager showed us evidence they had commenced the process of registering with CQC.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable regarding signs of potential abuse and how to recognise abuse. They were also aware of the reporting procedures. Assessments in care files identified risks to people and management plans were in place to reduce risks to enable people to live an independent lifestyle.

We received positive feedback from both the people we spoke with and their relatives. They all told us the service provided good care that was safe.

Recruitment procedures ensured the right staff were employed to meet people’s needs safely.

Medication systems were in place to ensure people received medication as prescribed and safely. Staff had received training to administer medications safely. However, systems were being improved at the time of our inspection.

At the time of the inspection there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives whom we spoke with told us that there had been problems with consistency of staff but this was improving and there were adequate staff to meet people’s needs and facilitate regular activities in the community.

Staff supported people to enable choice and control of their lives and people were supported in the least restrictive way possible.

People were treated with dignity and respect. People told us that the staff who supported them were kind and very caring. Staff we spoke with understood how to respect people’s preferences and ensure their privacy and dignity was maintained.

There was a system in place to tell people how to raise concerns and how these would be managed. Relatives we spoke with told us they hadn’t had to raise any concerns but wouldn’t hesitate if required.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Action plans were implemented for any improvements required and these were followed by staff. The quality monitoring had identified that some improvements were required in the quality of the paperwork and documentation in care plans and medication records. These improvements had been commenced.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.