Breeze Support Solutions

Breeze Support Solutions provides a home care and a supported living service. At the time of the assessment, there were no people using the supported living service. This report only covers the home care service for people receiving personal care.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the assessment, 9 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.

This was the first assessment of the service since it registered with CQC.

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. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any people with autism or a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture.’

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care which met people’s individual needs.

The service was small and recruitment was ongoing. The nominated individual told us they were taking a measured approach to growth, prioritising consolidation and quality of care rather than rapid expansion. A nominated individual is someone appointed by the provider and is responsible for supervising the management of the regulated activity.

Recruitment checks were carried out before staff worked at the service. The service was working with their electronic care management supplier to ensure records clearly evidenced when certain checks had been carried out.

Whilst a system was in place to manage medicines, we identified some inconsistencies with electronic medicines records. We did not find any negative impact on people’s safety or care. The registered manager told us they were liaising with their electronic care management supplier to address these recording issues and improve consistency across documentation.

Staff used an electronic care management system to record care delivery, daily notes and observations in real time. This enabled consistent communication across the staff team and ensured important information, such as changes in health, risks or actions required, was shared promptly. People and relatives could also access the electronic system to see when staff were due to arrive and when visits were completed, which provided reassurance.

The provider promoted an inclusive and fair workplace and supported equality and diversity within the staff team. Employment practices were flexible and responsive to individual circumstances which helped staff to balance work with personal commitments.

There was a positive, person-centred culture which supported good outcomes for people. The registered manager described how the service’s values underpinned care delivery and decision making. They told us, “So many companies are centred on money, we wanted to make a difference by turning an existence into living.”

There was clear leadership and management oversight of the service. Both the nominated individual and registered manager were visible, approachable and actively involved in day-to-day operations, including care provision and visits. This helped ensure care was being delivered as planned and provided reassurance to people, relatives and staff.