Select Support +

Risks to people's safety were not always assessed and mitigated. Appropriate recruitment checks were not always carried out before staff started work to help ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Processes to ensure the safe use of medicines and to ensure staff had the skills and competencies they needed were not always robust. The provider had a process for the reporting and investigating of safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents, however the provider had failed to notify CQC of any allegations of abuse as required by law. There were sufficient staff deployed. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, including how to report concerns externally. The provider worked with heath and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff understood when the principles of the Mental Capacity Act should be applied, however systems of gaining consent were not robustly implemented, this was a recording concern and we saw people being offered day to day choices and consent being sought from people. Care records were individualised, however there was not always detailed guidance for staff in people’s care plans or guidance was conflicting. People received care that was based on their assessed individual needs. People's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this. Staff used a range of communication methods to engage with people effectively.

The service worked in line with the principles of Right support, Right care, Right culture. People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff promoted people’s independence, choice and control. Staff knew people well and people had control over their day to day activities and how they spent their time. People and relatives told us staff were caring. Staff provided us with examples of how they promoted people’s independence. People received personalised care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences, and staff supported people and their relatives to be involved with decisions relating to their care.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs, which was confirmed by people and their relatives. People and relatives were involved in their care and the service was centered around the people in their care. The provider worked in partnership with other key stakeholders. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard by meeting people’s information and communication needs. The provider had processes in place which enabled them to continuously seek feedback from people.

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. The oversight of the service needed improvements. Audits completed failed to identify all the concerns identified within this assessment, and where concerns had been identified they were not always actioned in a timely way. Notifications had not been submitted. There was a positive culture at the service and feedback from staff and people was very positive in relation to the management of the service. Staff felt well supported and people and relatives complimented the responsiveness of the management team.