Choice Supported Living - West Midlands

There were three supported living settings; one setting was shared by three people and two people lived alone. People were supported by staff during the day and night. 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.

People's needs had been assessed and were known to staff including how to safely prepare people's meals. Staff felt they had the support and training needed for their roles. People had been supported to have their homes adapted to meet their needs and to access healthcare support when needed. 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.

We saw, and relatives told us, people were well supported and treated by staff. The service had taken extra steps to support people when they might be distressed, for example during hospital stays. People were supported to have their views heard and to be involved in decisions about their care. People's privacy and dignity was promoted.

The service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

Care was planned to meet people's needs and preferences and to promote good outcomes. This included encouragement to get involved in activities and social events. People's communication needs were understood and met. Complaints had been appropriately responded to.

Relatives and staff described an open, inclusive service centred around meeting people's needs. We found some inconsistencies in staff knowledge and how records and audits were completed. This did not always promote the quality and safety of the service as far as possible. The provider notified us of events and incidents as required although we had to prompt one recent incident which had not yet been shared with us. The registered manager understood their responsibilities to the CQC and took action in response to our inspection findings to help continuously improve the service.