Aylestone

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found people received care in accordance with this guidance and care workers and staff had received appropriate training relating to people with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of our assessment there were 7 people using the service.

Risks were being assessed, and measures were in place to reduce the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints were analysed and lessons learned to reduce future risks. People received the support they required with their medicines, and these were regularly reviewed. The environment was safe and well maintained. However, further improvements were needed to ensure the environment was fully utilised to meet people’s individual needs. Staff were deployed to meet people’s needs and keep them safe, though our observations and feedback from some relatives identified concerns around staff consistency and skills. Although there were enough staff to support the people using the service, there was ongoing work to ensure people received support from consistent staff and to further improve induction standards and on-going training for staff.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. However, a lack staff consistency and reflective practice meant missed opportunities for people to achieve the best possible outcomes. Improvements were needed to ensure people were supported to identify and achieve meaningful goals and aspirations, including hobbies and interests, and enabled to be as independent as possible. The provider had already identified this and had begun to pilot new systems and approaches. Staff encouraged and supported people to be a part of their local communities. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. The provider promoted and supported staff wellbeing. There were systems in place for people and their representatives, where appropriate, to give feedback about their care, including making complaints. Feedback was used to improve the service.

The service was without a registered manager at the time of our assessment. The provider had increased oversight of the service and allocated an interim manager who was also overseeing a second service whilst they were recruiting to the position. The provider had a range of governance systems and processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. However, governance systems were not always effective in identifying, assessing and addressing concerns in a timely way. During the assessment, we found inconsistencies in record keeping and staff approaches and these issues had not been consistently identified through the provider’s existing quality assurance processes. The provider was receptive to feedback and committed to addressing shortfalls and improving outcomes for people using the service.