Our inspection team was co-ordinated and carried out by an inspector from the Care Quality Commission who helped answer our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? As part of our inspection we visited four of the houses where people were supported by staff from IAS. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
We spoke with five people who used the service during our inspection who told us they felt treated with respect and dignity by staff at all times. People told us they felt safe and comfortable in the presence of staff. The provider had systems in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had been submitted to the local authority. This means people were safeguarded as required.
Systems were in place to ensure managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
We found people's nutrition and hydration needs were met safely. People had 'food and drink' support plans in place which captured information such as allergies, likes, dislikes and whether people required assistance to eat and drink.
We looked at staff recruitment files and found staff were recruited safely. This included ensuring a minimum of two references were obtained and DBS (Disclosure Barring Service) checks made.
Is the service effective?
There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant when required people could access additional support.
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in the creation of their support plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in support plans where required. Two people we spoke with told us they recalled being involved in their support plan review which was done each year.
People's needs were taken into account with the layout of each house which enabled people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments and had suitable disabled access if required.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. On the day of our inspection we observed staff spoke to people in a caring manner and were patient and understanding in respect of their varying support needs. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.
We visited people in their own homes. Some lived on their own (with support from staff), others received constant support from staff on a supported living basis. People spoke positively about the support they received. Comments included; 'I have been with IAS roughly 18 months. The support is good. Very good. I like going out. I'm supported with food preparation and domestic tasks. I work at the office on a Friday and I really like it' and 'I'm happy, I like it' and 'I go out with staff and choose what food I would like' and 'I'm happy with my care and support overall' and 'The staff are very good'.
Is the service responsive?
The people we spoke with told us they had access to a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People told us they were supported by their carers to attend appointments in the local community when required.
There was a complaints procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy but had never been given reason to. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary when required.
There were other various quality assurance systems in place. These included the sending of surveys to people who used the surveys, audits, house checks and through regular discussions during the annual support plan review.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. We saw evidence in support plans of involvement with doctors, dentist and opticians.
There were several quality assurance systems in place. We looked at a sample of these which identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. Quality assurance systems included surveys, tenant/staff meetings and annual support plan reviews.
The staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities and told us they developed good relationships with people who used the service over time. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.