Wallasey Project

At the time of our inspection the Wallasey Project provided care and support to 24 people living in their own homes, in order to support them to live in their own home as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for people supported in their own homes; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support.

The service is provided by Wirral Independent Living Services Ltd (WILS), who also run another supported living service from its head office in the Birkenhead area of the Wirral. WILS aim to provide specialist support services to individuals who may have a range of complex needs, which may include a severe mental illness, learning disability, physical disability, alcohol dependency, substance misuse or homelessness.

The service had a registered manager, who had worked for the organisation for many years. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The day-to-day operation of the service was managed by the service manager, who was several weeks away from completing a Level 5 NVQ in Management and was in the process of applying to CQC as a registered manager.

During this inspection we found that the service was performing well in most areas. However, the service was not keeping appropriate records of the medication that people had been supported to take. Staff recorded that they had supported the person with their medication in the daily records but they did not specifically record each medication that they had supported the person to take. This was not in line with the relevant national guidance on managing people's medicines in the community.

Staff, who had appropriate training and experience, provided people with appropriate support with their medication. The staff told us that they were confident supporting people with their medication and assisted people to take the right medication at the right times. The staff were knowledgeable about people's medication needs and people told us that the staff were very helpful with this.

Overall, staff were safely recruited and were supported with a thorough induction process. Criminal records checks, known as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) records, were carried out. We also saw that official identification, such as a passport or driving licence and verified references from the most recent employers were also kept in staff files. However, in one of the recruitment files we reviewed we saw that the member of staff's references were missing. We discussed this with the senior management at the service who explained that they were unable to account for how or why this information was missing. Based on other information in the file we were reassured that references for this longstanding member of staff were originally obtained

but had been misplaced.

We saw that people's care plans were person-centred and provided staff with the information they needed to meet people's needs. They also contained relevant risk assessments, which were reviewed regularly and gave staff the information needed to safely manage these risks.

The service had systems in place to protect people from abuse and staff demonstrated a good understanding of this when we spoke with them. They were able to demonstrate the actions they would take in the event of a person being at risk of harm. Records showed that safeguarding concerns were promptly and effectively managed by staff with oversight from the registered manager. The service was also meeting its obligation to notify CQC of any safeguarding concerns.

Staff training records were well-maintained and up-to-date and there was a clear system to document and plan staff training. We saw that all staff had received training relevant to their roles and the staff gave positive feedback about training provided at the service.

Staff had received regular supervisions and appraisals with senior staff. All staff told us that they felt well- supported working for the service and they received an appropriate level of supervision from senior staff.

All of the people we spoke with told us that they knew the staff who supported them and they could rely on them.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and to report on what we find. We saw that the registered provider had policies and guidance available for staff in relation to the MCA. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of this and recognised the importance of providing people with support that empowered them to live as independently as possible.

Information about how to complain was available to the people using the service. The people we spoke with told us they felt able to speak with staff if they ever had any issues or concerns. The service had not received any formal complaints but the records we saw showed that any issues that had been raised were appropriately documented and addressed by staff.

The service gathered feedback about the quality of its service in various ways. These included random spot check visits to people carried by the service manager and annual service satisfaction questionnaires.

The service had up-to-date policies and procedures in place to support the running of the service and these were regularly reviewed.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found