We carried out a review of the data available to us about HF Trust - Leicestershire on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about HF Trust - Leicestershire, you can give feedback on this service.
Choice East Midlands is a domiciliary care agency. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care to 20 people with learning disabilities living their own homes and supported living accommodation.
People’s experience of using this service
People felt safe and were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff knew when and how to report concerns. Systems and processes were in place to identify and manage risk. Action was taken when things went wrong to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. People were routinely asked if they had any problems or concerned and staff knew how to recognise when people were worried even when they may not be able to verbally express this.
There were enough staff with the right skills and experience to meet people’s needs. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way. Staff supported people to keep their homes’ clean and tidy. They had access to personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons and followed infection prevention and control policies to reduce the risk of infection.
People had their needs and choices assessed before they began using the service. Care and support was delivered in line with evidence based best practice guidance. Staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs. They had access to ongoing training and opportunities for professional development. People were supported to eat and drink enough and staff promoted a healthy balanced diet. Staff recognized changes in people’s health and supported them to access the healthcare services they required.
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.
People received kind and compassionate care and support. They were supported by staff who knew them well and had developed positive relationships. Staff understood how to meet people’s needs and how to provide comfort and reassurance. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People had their privacy and dignity protected.
Care and support was person centred and was delivered in the way people preferred and met their individual needs. Staff understood people’s needs with regards to the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. Information was available to people in accessible formats and staff communicated with people effectively. People were occupied with activities and were able to pursue their interests and hobbies. People and relatives knew how to make a complaint and said they would feel confident doing so. Complaints were investigated and used as an opportunity to learn and improve.
People’s advanced care wishes were explored and recorded. Staff knew about people’s individual preferences for end of life care.
People, relatives and staff had confidence in their managers and felt supported. They told us the registered manager was accessible and approachable. There was an effective quality assurance system. Checks were carried out to ensure staff were following policies and procedures and people were safe. Action plans were developed when shortfalls were found and this contributed to continual learning and improvement. The registered manager was supported by a senior manager and departments from within the wider organization.
People, their relatives and staff were asked for their feedback and this was used to develop the service and ensure it was meeting people’s needs and preferences. The registered manager and staff worked closely with healthcare professionals and other agencies such as the local authority to make sure people received joined up care and support.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was ‘Good’ (published 13 October 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to review information we receive about the service until the next scheduled inspection. If we receive any information of concern, we may inspect sooner than scheduled. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Choice East Midlands (Supported Living) provides personal care and support for people with learning disabilities in their own homes. There were 37 people using the service when we inspected.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has 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.
People felt safe with the support offered. Staff could describe and understood their responsibilities to support people to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. The provider had systems in place to manage and deal with accidents and incidents appropriately. Risks to people’s well-being were assessed. For example, where people could have shown behaviour that challenged, staff had guidance available to them.
People’s homes and equipment were regularly checked and the provider had plans to keep people safe during significant incidents, such as a fire.
People were satisfied with the availability of staff to provide their support. Staff were checked for their suitability before starting work for the provider so that people received support from those appropriate to work within the caring profession.
Where people required support to take their prescribed medicines, this was undertaken in a safe way by staff who had received regular guidance. Staff knew what to do should a mistake occur when handling medicines.
People received support from staff who had suitable skills and knowledge. Staff received an induction when they started working for the service and regular training and guidance. This included meeting regularly with their supervisor to discuss their working practices and to receive feedback to enable them to provide effective support to people.
People received support in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The provider had undertaken mental capacity assessments where there were concerns about people’s ability to make specific decisions. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Act and appropriate support had been sought where they were seeking to lawfully deprive a person of their liberty.
People chose their own food and drink and were supported to maintain a balanced diet where this was required. They had access to healthcare services to promote their well-being and were involved in decisions about their health.
People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected including the safe handling of their sensitive and private information. Staff knew people’s communication requirements and the provider had made information easier to read to aid people’s understanding. For example, the provider’s complaints procedure was written using pictures.
People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. For example, by washing their own clothes. Staff knew people’s preferences and had involved people in planning their own support. Where people required additional support, advocacy information was available to them.
People had contributed to the planning and review of their support. The recording of this within people’s care records had not always taken place. The registered manager told us they would make improvements. People had support plans that were person-centred and staff knew how to support each person based on their individual preferences. People took part in interests and hobbies they enjoyed including paid and voluntary work.
People knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a complaints policy in place that was available for people and members of the public. This included how the provider would respond to any complaints made. Complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s policy.
People, their relatives and staff had opportunities to give feedback to the provider. For example, staff attended regular staff meetings where they could offer suggestions to improve the service. We saw that the provider took action where this was necessary following feedback received. The registered manager told us they would make improvements to recording what action they had taken as this was not always in place.
Staff felt supported and received feedback on their work through individual meetings with a manager. Staff understood their responsibilities including reporting the poor practice of their colleagues should they have needed to.
The provider was regularly checking the quality of the service. For example, checks on the practice of staff occurred to make sure the support they provided was safe and effective. Where the provider needed to make improvements, action was taken although some were outstanding.
The provider had aims and objectives for the service that were known by staff. This included valuing people’s diversity. We saw examples of this incorporated into the practice of staff during our visit.
The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and supported staff in line with the provider’s policies and procedures to make sure staff members were effective in providing support to people.