We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? We visited the services office and spoke with the registered manager, nominated individual and two support staff. We checked records and we spoke with relatives of people who used the service.
Below is a summary of what we found.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
Relatives of people who used the service told us they thought the agency and the staff provided a safe service. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.
The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.
Relatives of people who used the service said they felt their loved ones privacy was respected when staff assisted them with care and support .They said, 'staff are brilliant with them (relative), they treat them with respect.'
We found that risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant that people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
Staff were aware of potential environmental risks and said documentation to reflect any changing risks was always updated and communicated to all staff.
Recruitment practices were safe, thorough and effective. There were procedures in place to ensure staff were suitable for their role.
Is the service effective?
Relatives told us they were actively involved in making decisions about their family member. People's health and care needs were assessed with them and their representatives, and they were involved in writing the support plans. Relatives of people supported said their loved ones support plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.
Staff were provided with training to ensure they had the skills to meet people's needs. Managers' were accessible to staff for advice and support.
Is the service caring?
We asked relatives of people who used the service for their opinions about the support provided. Feedback and comments were very positive, for example; 'excellent care', 'this is more than an excellent service, absolutely brilliant' and 'they know the staff, we can see they are happy when they are with staff.'
When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported and had a detailed knowledge of the person's interests, personality and support needs.
Relatives of people who used the service said their loved ones preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and staff provided support in accordance with their wishes.
Is the service responsive?
Relatives spoken with said they had never had to make a complaint but knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We found that appropriate procedures were in place to respond to and record any complaints received. People could be assured that systems were in place to investigate complaints and take action as necessary.
Relatives said they felt listened too and the agency would respond to their views. They told us the staff and the managers were flexible and accommodating with visit times. A relative told us, 'I see the managers all the time; any issues are sorted straight away.'
Is the service well-led?
The service had a comprehensive quality assurance system. The manager confirmed that audits were regularly conducted and they worked alongside support staff very regularly. The manager said they monitored staff at these times but said they didn't always record these observations. We saw evidence that staff performance was discussed at their supervision sessions which were held every two to three months.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the agency and showed a commitment to their work with Bridge Medical Solutions. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.