4 June 2014
During a routine inspection
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using 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?
People told us they were treated with respect and politeness by the staff who visited them at their homes to offer them support with their mental health needs.
People told us they felt safe in their home with the staff who came to see them. People were protected by safeguarding procedures that were robust and informative. The staff knew how to keep people who used the service safe from abuse.
Recruitment procedures were robust. They aimed to ensure that only suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff were employed to work with people who used the service.
Is the service effective?
The people we spoke with told us that the staff supported them and helped them to achieve goals that were important to them. For example one person told us they had been to a local music festival with the support of staff. They told us they had really wanted to go to this event.
People's support needs were planned and agreed with their full involvement. Support plans clearly set out the type of support that people needed to effectively meet their mental health needs.
Staff had received training on the subject of promoting equality and valuing diversity when working with people who used the service. The provider had an equality and diversity policy for staff to follow. This demonstrated the provider aimed to ensure differences were respected and people who used the service were treated fairly.
Is the service caring?
People who used the service had positive views to share with us of the staff who supported them. Examples of comments made included, 'they help me' and 'they are very helpful', and 'they are always polite', 'the staff are very helpful', 'they encourage me to do things' and 'they really try hard'.
People told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff. One person told us 'They listen to you'. Another person told us 'I would be lost without them'.
We saw that people's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been clearly recorded in their support plans. Support was provided in the way that was preferred by the person concerned in accordance with their wishes. For example, people were offered additional one to one support at times of the day that suited them.
Is the service responsive?
People were provided with a flexible service depending on their current needs. One person told us, 'The amount of support I get varies depending on my illnesses; it lessens when I'm OK'.
We saw in the support plans we viewed that the staff also supported people to meet their physical needs. One person told us, 'they come with me when I go and see the diabetic nurse".
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about any aspect of the service. The five people that we spoke with said that they felt able to speak to a senior member of staff at any time if they had a concern or a complaint.
Is the service well-led?
The people who we spoke with had positive views of the senior staff . One person told us that the senior support worker was 'very good at their job'. They also told us they would go to them if they needed to speak to a senior member of staff.
The views of people who used the service were actively sought by the service. People were regularly asked for and encouraged to give feedback. Their views were acted upon to further improve the service.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of support that people received. People were regularly consulted as part of the process of monitoring quality and outcomes for people who Second Step supported in their home.