Archived: Valley Supported Living

Updated 1 September 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 was planned to check whether the provider was 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 inspection took place on 21, 22 and 26 June 2017. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice because the service is small and we needed to be sure that someone would be available for the inspection. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection the provider sent us a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information to us about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

Prior to the inspection visit we received concerning information relating to changes to the management team, the availability and skills of staff and lack of clear records such as support plans and risk assessments. The local authority contract monitoring team and commissioning teams, the police and other health and social care professionals shared their concerns about the service with us.

We reviewed the information we held about the service such as notifications, complaints and safeguarding information. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection, we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We spoke with the nominated individual, four trustees, the interim manager, seven support staff and one agency staff. With permission we visited and spoke with five people in their own homes and with five parents, two of whom were trustees of the Charity operating the service.

We looked at a sample of available records including seven people’s support plans and other associated documentation, two staff recruitment and induction records, staff rotas, training and supervision records, minutes from trustee meetings, complaints and compliments records, medication records, maintenance certificates and development plans, policies and procedures and quality assurance audits.

Updated 1 September 2017

We carried out an inspection of on 21, 22 and 26 June 2017. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice because the service is small and we needed to be sure that someone would be available for the inspection.

Valley Supported Living is a small registered charity providing care and support to adults with learning difficulties who live in their own homes. The organisation is run by a group of trustees including parent trustees. The aim of the service is to promote independent living through a range of services including assistance with personal care. The registered office premises were located in Bacup, Lancashire however there had been a recent move of office to Waterfoot, Rossendale. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to seven people.

At the previous inspection on 21 and 22 October 2015 we found the service was not meeting all the standards assessed.

During this inspection our findings demonstrated there were breaches of eight regulations in respect of medicines management, risk management, support planning, data protection and record keeping, failure to notify, managing complaints, consent to treatment, staffing, safeguarding and quality assurance systems. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The service was managed by a registered manager. However at the time of the inspection the registered manager had not been working at the service since the end of April 2017; an interim manager had been in post since late May 2017. 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.

Safeguarding adults' procedures were in place however staff had failed to follow safe procedures. This meant staff lacked an understanding of their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding vulnerable adults. There was also a lack of clarity about how people were supported with the management of their finances. The interim manager was clear about their responsibilities for reporting incidents and safeguarding concerns and was currently working in cooperation with other local agencies.

People considered there had been times when recently there had not been sufficient experienced staff to support them with their activities and with care and support. Changes to the staff and management team had created shortfalls and meant a high reliance on agency staff was necessary. This had impacted on people’s support and access to leisure activities and we were told visits had been missed. There had been a lack of communication with people about the sudden changes to what had previously been a stable management team; this had created unsettlement and anxiety for people.

The recent changes to the staff team had impacted on the provision of some planned activities. However people told us this was improving. We noted people were able to participate in a wide range of meaningful work and leisure activities in line with their interests and preferences. People attended local social clubs and groups where they could achieve more independence and make new relationships with people in the local community.

People's capacity to make their own decisions had not been assessed or recorded in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received training in this area. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Each person had a detailed support plan although the information had not been kept up to date and any risks to people’s health and safety had not always been identified, assessed or managed safely. It was not clear whether people were involved in decisions about their care. People were supported to access health care and the relevant health and social care professionals provided advice and support when people’s needs changed.

People were aware of how to raise their concerns and complaints and were confident they would be listened to. However the management of people’s complaints and concerns needed improvement.

There had been limited oversight of the management of the service or of the registered manager’s practice which had created avoidable shortfalls in a number of areas as detailed in the main body of the report. The service had failed to notify us of important changes and people’s records were not always accurate and had not been stored safely or disposed of in line with legislation.

People told us they felt safe and were happy with the way they were treated by staff. They told us staff were caring and friendly. The interim manager and staff were observed to have positive relationships with people living in the home. People were relaxed in the company of staff and were supported to maintain contact with friends and relatives. During our visits we found staff were respectful to people and treated them with kindness. The atmosphere in each of the homes was happy and relaxed.

The recruitment process was being reviewed to ensure it was safe and fair. Arrangements were in place to make sure staff were suitably trained and supervised. We found further improvements were needed to how people’s medicines were managed.

People lived in comfortable, clean and well maintained environments. Appropriate aids and adaptations had been provided to help maintain their safety, independence and comfort.