Archived: Mulberry Court and Scope Inclusion Dorset

Mulberry Court provides supported living services in two bungalows for up to 12 people. During our inspection there was 11 people accommodated at the service. The buildings had been purposely built to provide housing for people who needed support to remain as independent as possible. Some people had lived there for a number of years and people lived with varying degrees of support needs. Scope Inclusion is a domiciliary care service that operates from the location, and provides domiciliary care services to three people who live in their own homes in the community.

When we last inspected the service in February 2014 we found it was not meeting all the requirements in the areas we inspected. The service had not notified the CQC of an incident. We told the provider that improvements were required and they wrote to us to inform us when the improvements would be made.

The current registered manager has been registered since September 2014. 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.

There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere within the service. It was evident that Mulberry Court was people’s home and staff were respectful of that. Some people were out and others chose not to talk with us others were able to engage with us and tell us about their experiences.

People were supported to live as independently as they were able. There was a wide range of ages and support needs and people received care and support based on them as an individual. People, staff and health and social care professional described the care and support as personalised. One person told us they could do whatever they chose to do.

People were positive about staff using terms such as brilliant, five star and one relative told us the importance of staff engaging in humour with their relation. Staff were kind and considerate to people.

Staffing was arranged according to what people had planned for the day and we saw that minimum numbers were achieved. People who received support from the inclusion service told us they received their visits on time and staff were unhurried.

People received enough to eat and drink, some people were independent and others required more support. Staff were flexible to the needs of people. Some people had specific needs around eating and drink such as at risk of choking and there were support plans developed to provide guidance for staff on how to support people safely.

Staff received appropriate training to enable them to carry out their job roles effectively and there were processes in place to provide supervision and carry out observations on their practice. Feedback from both informed staff annual appraisal and staff were supported with their professional development.

People felt involved in making decisions about their care and were actively involved in planning their daily lives and regular review of their care and support needs. There was a key worker system and people had monthly meetings with them as well as an annual review. Staff were responsive to people’s changing health needs and one person received urgent medical attention because of staff vigilance.

There were quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that areas for improvements were identified and added to the service improvement plan, which was then monitored and signed off when actions were completed.

People had access to a wide range of activities and some people could access these independently using their own cars. Other people accessed the community using public transport and staff supported people when needed.

We found that people's needs were assessed, and care was planned and delivered to meet people's needs. A person told us, "They discuss my support needs with me." People's care was regularly reviewed and their personal information was held securely.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and their human rights were respected and upheld. A person told us, "I'm not worried about anybody here.'

We viewed a selection of staff records, and saw that relevant checks had been carried out when the service employed staff. Staff had opportunities to gain appropriate qualifications.

We found that the service had not, without delay, notified the Care Quality Commission of an event that had the potential to affect a person's welfare and safety.

People's personal records were accurate, fit for purpose, held securely and remained confidential. We found that other records, that were required to protect people's safety and wellbeing, were maintained and held securely.