We carried out a review of the data available to us about Your Ability - Slough 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 Your Ability - Slough, you can give feedback on this service.
At the time of the inspection 22 people used the services provided by Your Ability Slough. However, not everyone received regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection,17 people were receiving the regulated activity.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People’s experience of using this service:
The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
People felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff were trained and knowledgeable in how to protect and safeguard people from abuse. They understood their responsibilities to report concerns and were confident action would be taken promptly when necessary. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and assessed as competent to assist people with their medicines. Risks to people and their well-being were assessed. Plans to reduce and mitigate risks without restricting people’s freedom were in place. A robust recruitment procedure was followed to ensure as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people safely. Staff had been trained in infection control and used personal protective equipment appropriately. Accidents and incidents were reported, investigated and monitored to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
People received effective support from staff who were trained and had demonstrated the necessary skills to fulfil their role. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and other managers. They were provided with regular supervision meetings as well as opportunities to meet as a team. People were supported to plan and prepare their meals. Staff encouraged people to think about healthy eating options. People’s healthcare needs were monitored; staff sought advice promptly from healthcare professionals when necessary and called emergency services when required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People told us staff were kind and patient. Staff had formed good relationships with people, they knew their individual needs well and demonstrated understanding. Staff protected people’s privacy and treated people with respect. People and when appropriate relatives had been involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff worked hard to encourage people to build and maintain as much independence as they were able to.
The service was responsive to people’s individual needs and took account of their personal preferences in relation to culture, beliefs and protected characteristics. Staff knew people very well and paid attention to following their preferred routines. Individual support plans were person-centred and detailed the diverse needs of each person. The service provided flexible support to accommodate people’s individual wishes and preferred routines. Complaints were recorded and managed in accordance with the provider’s policy; people were aware of how to raise concerns and who to speak to. The Accessible Information Standard was being met. Staff employed a variety of communication methods to ensure people were able to understand information.
The service was well-led, the registered manager and senior managers provided strong leadership. Staff felt supported in their roles and could seek advice when necessary. Records were relevant, complete and reviewed regularly to reflect current information.There was an open and honest culture which supported person-centred and individualised care and support. Staff had received training on and were clear about the values of the service. Feedback was sought from people and stakeholders which was used to monitor the quality of the service. Quality assurance audits were conducted and used to make improvements.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated Good. The last inspection report was published on 4 August 2016.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection to confirm that this service remained Good.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor any information we receive about the service to ensure care and support remains safe and of good quality. We will return to re-inspect in line with our inspection timescales for good services. However, we may return sooner if any information of concern is received.
The registered manager has been in post since September 2014. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We previously inspected the service on the 14 January 2014. The service was found to be compliant in all areas inspected.
People said staff were caring and looked after them well. We observed staff were caring, kind and warm towards the people they interacted with. Staff established good working relationships with people and people confirmed staff knew them well. People were able to express their opinions and staff ensured they were treated with respect, dignity and their privacy was protected. We have made a recommendation for the service to seek how to obtain people’s preferences, based upon current best practice, in relation to end of life care.
Staff spoke positively about the induction and training received and said it enabled them to carry out their work effectively. Staff said they were well supported by their team leader and a review of their supervisions records supported this.
The service sought people’s consent and involved them in decisions. Care records showed people made decisions in regards to various aspect of care such as their food preferences. We saw people’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported to maintain good health.
People said they were safe from abuse and staff demonstrated they understood how to ensure people were protected from abuse. Identified risks to people’s welfare and well-being were managed appropriately. There were safe recruitment practices in place. We have recommended the provider seek current guidance and legislation in relation to the completion of medical health checks for prospective employees.
People received care that was specific to their needs. Care records captured people’s cultural, religious needs and gender preferences. People were actively engaged in a wide variety of social activities and staff encouraged people to maintain their hobbies and interests. This ensured people received care and support that reflected their wishes.
People said they knew how to raise concerns. We noted the complaints booklet was available in an easy read format to enable people to understand what to do and who to talk to if they had concerns. Staff were confident in handling complaints and told us how they supported people to do this.
There were clear visions and values for how the service should operate and how staff should promote these. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the service’s values. They said management was supportive and encouraged them to be decision makers.
People said the service was well-led. Comments included, “I think this is a good service”, I like the staff. I love living here” and “It’s alright. It’s good because I can get to do the things I enjoy.” The service sought people’s views about the care they received and took appropriate action in response to the feedback received.
The service had established effective quality assurance systems to assess monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service it provided. For instance, ‘service audits’ reviewed various aspect of service delivery to ensure plans to improve the quality and safety of services provided to people, were effective.
Another person commented, 'I can choose what I like to eat.' We looked at their support plans and staff daily records. It showed how staff supported them with their preferences. This confirmed people who used the service were given choice and were supported in their decisions.
One member of staff told us, 'It is our duty to make sure people who use our service are safeguarded from harm. We use our risk assessments to help us do this.' Training records confirmed they had undertaken relevant training. People could be confident they were supported by staff members who could respond appropriately to suspected abuse.
We reviewed supervision meeting notes for the staff we spoke with. We saw these provided opportunity for staff to reflect upon their skills and personal development, feedback any concerns and present new ideas. This meant arrangements were in place to ensure staff were supported and effectively managed.
One individual informed staff at a tenants' meeting they were not happy that their weekly shopping was carried out too late in the afternoon. They requested it be changed to the mornings instead. Staff responded to their request and changed the times. This showed the service sought feedback from people who used the service and responded to them.