Inmind community Support Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. Assessments had been completed to ensure care plans and risk assessments were in place that were based on people's individual needs. People were protected from potential abuse as staff had received training and they were aware of the procedures to follow if there were any concerns. There were enough staff who were safely recruited to support people. Medicines were administered in a safe way by staff who were appropriately trained. There was a positive learning culture within the service.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff and leaders spoke confidently about the culture of the service. One staff member gave us an example of how an incident had occurred. They told us this was discussed in a staff meeting and they had some learning from this. They told us how their practices had now changed and how they did things differently. Staff were aware of whistleblowing procedures, felt confident to raise concerns and felt they would be encouraged by the management team to do so.

We found there were processes in place that were followed to evidence learning was taking place. For example, when potential safeguarding concerns had occurred, these were reviewed and investigated. This information was then reviewed to see if anything could be done differently if this happened again. This was the same for incidents and accidents. Information was shared with staff through team meetings and staff were able to share information with us that had been discussed with them.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the culture of the service.

Staff and leaders spoke positively about the systems that were in place to manage people's care. Staff told us they had information about people before they started using the service and these assessments were accurate of people's needs. When people's needs changed staff and leaders confirmed a handover took place and information was shared about people. Staff confirmed and we saw when needed people had input from other agencies including, mental health services and social work teams.

We requested feedback from the local authority on this service, they raised no concerns to us.

People had a comprehensive assessment completed before they started using the service to ensure their needs were assessed and could be met. There were processes in place to ensure guidance from health professionals was followed and this guidance had been transferred to people's individual care plans for staff to follow.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the standard of care they received.

There were procedures in place to identify and report safeguarding concerns. When needed, these procedures were followed so that appropriate action could be taken to keep people safe. Duty of candor was followed and information was shared with staff in a meeting to ensure lessons learnt. There was a safeguarding file in place that showed action taken and how these concerns were tracked. Mental capacity assessments were in place when needed and where people lacked capacity, decisions were made in people’s best interests. Deprivation of Liberty Standards (DoLS) applications had been made where needed and staff understood how DoLS authorisations applied to people’s care and support.

Staff had received training and understood when people may be at risk of abuse. They were able to give us examples, 1 staff member told us, “Everybody has the responsibility to safeguard people. It might also be concerns like bruising and being withdrawn so anything physical. We have a safeguarding printout, and I would follow the steps. I would raise any concerns with the registered manager. " No concerns about people’s safety were identified. Leaders were able to demonstrate an understanding of their role in protecting people from potential abuse.

People and relatives raised no concerns about safety. One relative told us, "I believe my relation is safe and it seems the care is pretty good."

People and relatives raised no concerns around the management of risk. People were comfortable and at ease in their environment. One relative told us, "I believe things are managed in a safe way."

Staff and leaders were able to demonstrate the important of safety. They told us how they used information in care plans and risk assessments to support people safely. One staff member told us, "We have a support plan for all of our people. There are also health plans in place that identify all their needs. They are really good and detailed. We have input into them, and we try to involve people and those important to them, with this." Another staff member said, "We share information in handover. Handover is really good. Communication is really good."

Individual risks to people such as communication needs, mobility and health needs, were assessed, monitored and reviewed. When incidents or changes had occurred, plans were updated to reflect this. We saw during our inspection people were supported in line with these plans, for example when people went out into the community. People and those important to them were involved with this process and meetings were held to ensure care was reviewed.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The registered manager told us and we saw there was a system in place that ensured the correct number of staff were available for people. Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working with people to ensure they were safe to do so. Staff had received training to ensure they were trained to support people. This included mandatory training and training that was specific to people’s individual needs. We reviewed the training matrix and this confirmed staffs training was up to date.

There were enough staff available to support people. The records and our observations showed people had the care they needed at the correct time. No concerns were raised with us about staffing levels, a relative told us they believed there was enough staff available for care.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People received their medicines when they needed them. Records we reviewed confirmed this. No concerns were raised to us with how these were administered. A relative told us they were, "Happy" with this process.

There were processes in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way. When people had 'as required' medicines there were plans in place showing when these needed to be administered.

Staff told us and the registered manager confirmed that before they started administering medicines to people they had completed training and their competency was regularly checked to ensure they were safe to do so.