Voyage (DCA) Rotherham

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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.

On the day of our inspection 48 people were receiving a regulated activity.

People's experience of using this service: People were safe. All people we spoke with told us staff made them feel safe. Staff we spoke with understood safeguarding procedures and how to whistle blow if required to ensure any safeguarding concerns were reported. The registered manager monitored accidents and incidents to try to ensure lessons learnt. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

Risks were managed to enable people to be as independent as possible. Accidents and incidents were monitored, and lessons were learnt. Medication systems were in place and followed by staff to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

We found adequate staff were provided to meet people's needs. However, in one scheme they were short staffed and permanent staff were covering extra shifts. The provider was actively recruiting to ensure adequate staff were employed. The recruitment process was robust to ensure only staff suitable to work with vulnerable adults were employed.

Staff were very knowledgeable about people needs, care was person-centred and individualised. Staff said training was good and from talking with staff and our observations it was effective. Staff were supervised and supported.

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.

People were supported to be able to receive a balanced diet. People told us they chose their food, but staff supported them. People had access to health care professionals.

When staff engaged with people they were kind, caring and compassionate. People told us the staff were lovely and genuinely cared. People were involved in their care planning to ensure their decisions and choices were reflected.

Staff, people who used the service and health care professionals we spoke with told us the communication was predominantly good. However, we were told in one area the communication could improve, the registered manager had already identified this and was addressing it.

People told us they were supported by the same group of staff, which ensured consistency. However, in one scheme, due to staff shortages this was not always possible. This was being addressed by the registered manager.

The service had a registered manager who conducted a range of audits in areas such as, medicine management, health and safety, care plans and daily records documentation. We found the monitoring was effective. For example, the registered manager had identified the need to improve communication in a service and was addressing this at the time of our inspection.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk