ELY DIOCESAN ASSOCIATION FOR DEAF PEOPLE (Cambridgeshire Deaf Association)

Safety risks were not always identified, however, improvements in oversight and risk assessment took place during the assessment timeframe. Staff ensured people were involved in making decisions about how they wanted support to be provided. People, those important to them, and staff knew how to raise concerns. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse, and this included raising concerns outside of the service if needed. Staff received training which met the needs of the people they supported and met their own communication needs. Staff received support through supervision and appraisal, and their continuous learning was supported. Managers ensured recruitment checks were undertaken on all staff to ensure only those who were deemed suitable and fit, would be employed to support people at the service.

People’s care plans were mostly reflective of their needs. Where an area for improvement was identified, the registered manager acted promptly. People’s needs and rights were supported by staff, and they were aware of their rights around care and treatment. People’s care and treatment was effective. People’s communication needs, support requirements, and wellbeing was reviewed with them. Staff knew the people they supported well, had completed mental capacity act training, and knew of consent requirements.

People were supported by staff to have choice and control and make decisions about how their support was provided. People told us staff encouraged them to do as much as they could for themselves to maintain and increase, where possible, their independence. People were encouraged and supported to take part in education and activities of choice, both at home and in the community.

People received person-centred care and support from a core staff team that knew them well. People were supported by staff to spend time doing things they enjoyed, this included working towards goals. Information was provided to people, their relatives and staff in their preferred format, and the communication systems at the service also supported this. Staff understood how poor communication, or communication which did not meet the needs of people, could have a poor outcome. Concerns and complaints were reviewed by the most appropriate person, and the providers procedures were followed.

Prior to the assessment, there had been some instability within the staff team, however, improvements had occurred, and the culture had improved. The governance systems had been reviewed, and an external quality consultant was working with the service to further strengthen oversight. The registered manager was aware of their legal responsibilities and was open and transparent with us, throughout the assessment.