Archived: Leeds Federated Housing Association

Updated 8 September 2016

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 is 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.

Our inspection took place on 03, 04 and 05 August 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice as the service supports people who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure someone would be in when we visited. We returned to the service on 09 August 2016 to give feedback to the registered manager and meet with a group of people who used the service to answer their questions about the inspection.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector. Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the provider, including any incident notifications and previous inspection reports. We also contacted Healthwatch and the local authority to ask if they had any information to share with us before the inspection. They did not have any information of concern about the provider. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

Before the inspection the provider completed and returned a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. During the inspection we visited the provider’s offices and the three services where people who used the service lived. We looked at four people’s care plans and other records relating to care and the management of the service. We spoke with five people who use the service, the registered manager and five members of staff.

Updated 8 September 2016

Our inspection took place on 03, 04 and 05 August 2016 and was announced. At our last inspection in April 2014 we found the provider was meeting all the standards we looked at.

Leeds Federated Housing Association supports people living as part of the shared living scheme. This is where people with a learning disability share the same house with other people with similar needs. Leeds Federated Housing Association has three houses, one of which is staffed 24 hours a day. At the time of our inspection there were ten people who used the service.

There was a registered manager in post on the day of our inspection. 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 told us they felt safe in the service and we found staff were knowledgeable about the types of abuse people may be at risk of and their responsibilities to report any concerns. Staff told us they were confident the registered manager would act on any concerns appropriately.

Recruitment of new staff was carried out safely. We saw interview records which demonstrated why people had been considered suitable for their role, and background checks which evidenced they were not barred from working with vulnerable people.

There was a comprehensive approach to identifying, documenting and minimising risks to people which covered risks associated with people’s support needs, the environment they lived in and risks taken to enable people who used the service to follow their preferred routines.

Management of medicines was safe. Medicines were stored securely and appropriately, and stocks and records we checked were correct.

We saw there was a programme of regular training and refresher courses in place, and staff told us they had the skills they needed to be effective in their roles. The provider ensured they were further supported with regular supervision meetings and an annual appraisal.

People who used the service had regular, documented access to a range of healthcare professionals and care plans contained information to be given to hospital staff to help them provide effective care should the person need admission for care or treatment.

The provider carried out detailed assessments of people’s capacity to make specific decisions, and we saw evidence showing appropriate people were involved to help make decisions where this was needed. People who used the service were involved in making choices for each week’s menu and were able to make their own food, drinks and snacks if they wished.

Care plans were detailed, person-centred and contained good information to help staff support people in the ways they preferred. The documents showed people who used the service were involved with writing them.

People were encouraged to participate in domestic tasks and lived in a homely and relaxed environment. They gave positive feedback about the staff and we observed ways in which they were supported to follow their preferred routines and lifestyles.

We saw people were involved in keeping care plans up to date to ensure they reflected their support needs and preferences. This information was also used to complete a ‘Hospital Passport’, which was a document given to hospital staff to help them understand the person’s individual needs if they had to be admitted.

There was a robust process in place to ensure complaints were resolved. If the provider was unable to resolve an issue to the satisfaction of the person, then there were procedures in place to refer the person to the appropriate ombudsman. Information about making complaints was displayed in the services in accessible formats.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager from people who used the service and the staff. We were told they were a visible presence in each of the services and listened to people’s suggestions before making decisions.

Staff had regular opportunities to attend meetings and told us they were able to make suggestions which the registered manager listened to. People who used the service also had regular opportunities to receive updates about the service and give feedback.

There was a programme of regular quality monitoring in place. We saw the reports produced also included action plans to ensure any necessary changes were made. The provider had attempted to further understand how well the service was performing by issuing a survey, but the registered manager told us this had not generated enough results to be meaningful. They told us they were reviewing how the survey could be conducted and planned to repeat it later in the year.