Mediline Supported Living Merseyside

The Secretary of State has asked CQC to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

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.

The culture of the service ensured the provision of support was bespoke and truly person centred. Management and staff embraced the organisational values as their own and were committed to the provision of care and support. People were supported and empowered by staff to control their own lives and live a life which was meaningful to them. The registered manager led the teams with creativity and collaboration, built on seamless relationships and good practice.

People were treated with the utmost respect dignity, empathy, and compassion. They were empowered to make choices to live a life of their choosing. Staff had gone to great lengths to ensure peoples preferences

and voices were heard, and the support given was as individual as the person receiving it.

People had a say in who they wanted to support them. Where possible, they took an active part in staff recruitment processes. Some staff had undergone additional training to meet the specific needs of the people they supported. Staff completed a thorough induction and undertook regular training to meet the requirements of their role.

People were actively encouraged to make decisions about how their support was provided and staff were respectful and understanding of people's rights and choices. Care and support requirements were recorded in a truly person-centred way.

Risk assessments were detailed, reflected people's individual needs, preferences, daily routines, and were regularly reviewed to ensure the most up-to-date information was available for staff to follow. There was a creative and comprehensive approach to risk taking and encouraging people to take risks to help them get the most of their support. People's individual communication needs were recorded and understood, and information was provided in a format most appropriate for them, which meant they could feel involved and included in their support.

People were supported and encouraged to maintain contact with friends and relatives and be a part of their local community. People participated in activities and occupations of their choice. Staff encouraged people to lead healthy and active lifestyles and supported people in trying new things.

People and their relatives were very complimentary regarding the caring nature, kindness and support of the staff team. Staff were thoughtful and truly felt proud of the people they were supporting.

People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

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.