All inspections: Kelly Street Supported Living Service

We carried out this unannounced inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The service was last inspected by CQC in November 2013 and found to be meeting regulations relating to care and welfare of people who use services, management of medicines and staffing.

At the time of our inspection Kelly Street Supported Living Service provided support with personal care to nine people living at Kelly Street and Ascot House. Each of the people supported by the service had learning disabilities, and some also had physical disabilities or required support to maintain their mental health. Some of the people who use the service had sensory impairments and complex communication needs. There were six people at home during our inspection visits.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People received individualised support that met their needs. The service had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from risks associated with their support, and care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences.

Staff were appropriately vetted before starting work to ensure they were suitable people, and there were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs in a timely manner. People received one-to-one support when they needed it. Staff had appropriate qualifications, knowledge and skills to perform their roles, and the service had systems in place to encourage good practice and develop staff.

The service encouraged and supported people to undertake a wide range of activities, both individually and in groups. Staff supported people to attend health and medical appointments, and ensured that people received the medical care they needed when they were unwell.

Staff were appropriately supported through supervision and appraisal meetings, and the service had an open and transparent culture that encouraged feedback from people who used the service and staff. Feedback was acted upon, people were encouraged to make decisions about their care and support and the service ensured that information was provided to people in ways they could understand.

This was a follow-up visit to our last inspection on 6th August 2013.At the last inspection we were concerned that the medication administration and associated auditing systems were not effective. We concluded that this this had a moderate impact on people who used the service, and had told the provider to take action. At this inspection we spoke to people who used the service, staff and a relative of a service user. We also checked people's medication and the records relating to its administration. We found that the provider had reviewed medication auditing systems and provided staff with guidance and refresher training to ensure medication administration was safe.

We noted that people's care plans were regularly reviewed and people who used the service, their relatives and other professionals were involved in the reviews. We noted people were engaged with activities provided for them at day centres and at the home. Staff and a relative of a person indicated that the current staffing level at the service was sufficient. a realtive of a person stated, "staff are all right, friendly" and do their job "very well".

Staff were unhurried and gave people time and support to make decisions. People who used the service felt that they were 'listened to' by staff and their preferences were responded to. People were able to attend a place of worship and could choose the meal they wanted.

People who used the service were able to enjoy activities at the service and in the community. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly. However, the provider may find it useful to note that information in one care plan was not accurate and the person who used the service or their representative had not signed the document.

Although staff had training in medication administration and there was a medication auditing system in place, this was not always effective. This put people who used the service at risk.

Pre-employment checks had been undertaken to ensure that staff were experienced and trained to provide care that people needed. There was an effective complaints procedure in place.

We spoke to three of the five people who used the service. We also observed and spoke to two support workers and the manager. People using the service appeared happy and relaxed when interacting with staff. We noted staff were approachable and pleasant toward people.

All the people we spoke with were positive about the service. They told us they liked living in their accommodation and using the service. They told us they were involved in their care and treatment. They indicated staff treated them with respect and dignity, and they could choose what to eat or when to get up.

People told us staff supported them with cooking, laundry and cleaning. We observed people were presentable with clean clothes. People told us they had key workers with whom they discussed their care plans. They confirmed that they attended their care plan review meetings.

People told us they were happy and 'felt safe'. They indicated staff had good knowledge of their needs. They felt their rights were protected.

People who use the service told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect. This included being enabled and encouraged to make their own decisions and choices, including care, treatment and deciding which activities they would like to do. They felt safe and protected by the service and enjoyed where they lived. They also said the meals were good.

Staff were friendly, supportive, knew their jobs and there were enough of them to meet people's needs.

People were supported to make complaints as required and knew who to complain to.

Archived: Kelly Street Supported Living Service

All Inspections

21 and 30 July 2014

During a routine inspection

24 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

6 August 2013

During a routine inspection

9 August 2012

During a routine inspection

28 February 2012

During a routine inspection