We carried out a review of the data available to us about Tess CIC 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 Tess CIC, you can give feedback on this service.
TESS CIC is a care agency providing personal care to 28 people who were living with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health conditions, sensory impairment. The service is provided for adults aged 18 or older and is provided in Spalding, Grantham, Lincoln and Stamford.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
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.
The provider was dedicated to helping people reach their potential. They provided opportunities to learn employable skills as well as supporting people to live their daily lives. People were supported to develop friendships and relationships.
People were enabled to take part in activities of their choice. The support was able to be provided flexibly to help people access events and activities that were outside of their normal support times. People using the service and their relatives used words like, reliable, friendly, amazing and helpful when describing the care and support they received.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to ensure people received care from a small number of staff who knew their needs well. Staff had been safely recruited and had received all of the training and support needed to provide safe care to people. Staff had regular meetings with the provider and registered manager to discuss the service and quality of care provided.
People were supported to be as independent as possible with their medicines, with prompts and encouragement from staff. They were also encouraged to keep their homes clean and tidy and staff had received training in how to reduce the risk of infection to support people with this activity.
People’s independence with their meals was supported. People were encouraged to plan their own menus on a weekly basis and staff supported them to shop and where needed cook the food. No one was at risk of malnutrition or choking but staff were aware of how to support people with these risks.
People had received an assessment when they started to use the service and care plans were developed to support staff to meet people’s needs. Monthly meetings were held with people to discuss their care and if any changes were needed.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided. They used feedback from people using the service to drive improvements and had set up a TESS CIC Council so people had a voice about developments they would like to see. The provider linked with other organisations to improve the quality of care provided and to ensure people had the opportunity to access events in the local community.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection.
The last rating for this service was Good (published 1 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Head Office is registered to provide personal care and support for people who live in the community. The service is registered to provide support for adults of all ages who have a learning disability and/or who need help due sensory disabilities and/or who need assistance managing their mental health. Some of the people who received support at the time of our inspection lived with their relatives. However, most of them had their own homes. Most people received at least one visit a week lasting several hours. Some people had longer visits and one person who needed extra assistance had members of staff living in their home.
The service covers the whole of Lincolnshire but at the time of our inspection all of the 30 people who used the service lived in the south of the county. The service's main office was in Moulton Chapel.
Head Office is operated by a company called Training, Employment Support Solutions CIC. The company was owned by two directors one of whom was also the 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager, we refer to them as being, 'the registered persons'.
The registered persons told us that the service emphasised the importance of enabling people to be as independent as possible. As a result everyone involved with the service referred to the care staff who provided support for people as being ‘personal coaches’. Therefore, we also use this term in our report.
Personal coaches knew how to respond to any concerns that might arise so that people were kept safe from abuse. People had been supported to take reasonable risks while at the same time avoiding preventable accidents. Although people had been helped to safely manage their medicines additional records and checks needed to be completed to ensure that this remained the case. There were enough personal coaches to provide people with the support they needed and background checks had been completed before new staff had been appointed.
Personal coaches had received training and guidance and they knew how to support people in the right way. People had been assisted to plan and prepare their own meals and they had been supported to receive all of the healthcare assistance they needed.
Personal coaches had ensured that people's rights were respected by helping them to make decisions for themselves. The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect people when they are not able to make decisions for themselves and it is necessary to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe. In relation to this, the registered persons had worked with the local authority to ensure that people only received lawful care that respected their rights.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Personal coaches recognised people's right to privacy and promoted their dignity. There were arrangements for people to be supported by lay advocates and confidential information was kept private.
People had been consulted about the support they wanted to receive and they had been given all of the encouragement they needed to be as independent as possible. People had been supported to pursue work commitments, hobbies and interests. There was a system for quickly and fairly resolving complaints.
People had not been fully consulted about the development of the service. Some quality checks had not been completed in the right way and this had increased the risk that people might not continue to receive all of the assistance they needed. Personal coaches were supported to speak out if they had any concerns and good team work was promoted. People had benefited from personal coaches using good practice guidance.