The announced inspection took place on the 1 September 2016.

AK Supported Housing Outreach Service provides support to people in their own homes who experience mental health problems. At the time of inspection there were 3 people who used the service.

The service demonstrated good leadership. The service is required to and did have a registered manager. 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.

Staff understood their responsibilities and how to keep people safe. People’s safety was ensured and support was provided in a way that intended to promote people’s health and wellbeing. A robust recruitment process was in place and staff were employed upon completion of appropriate checks.

Staff were supported to obtain current knowledge and skills which ensured they provided continuous effective care. Effective and safe systems were in place regarding the management of medicines.

Support staff provided support effectively to develop people’s confidence and independence. People’s rights were also protected because management and staff understood the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The registered manager knew how to apply such measures appropriately.

Staff supported people to receive healthcare services when required. Staff also worked with a range of external services, such as social workers, Police and GPs, to ensure care and support was delivered as requested by professionals.

People were supported in a person centred way by staff who understood their roles in relation to encouraging independence whilst mitigating potential risks. Staff were respectful and caring towards people ensuring privacy and dignity was valued. People were supported to increase independence and avoid social isolation.

The service had quality assurance systems in place however the registered manager identified that improvements to the robustness of systems could be made to drive service improvements. Although systems were in place to make sure that people’s views were gathered, analysis and action plans had not been created to make effective use of people’s views.

During our inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, two support workers and the manager. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they cared for. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints and whistleblowing investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are put into place to ensure that people's human rights are protected should their liberty be restricted in any way. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.

Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk, but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

The provider had safe and effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe working practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them. Social needs, physical needs and psychological needs had been identified in care plans where required. People told us that they had been involved in writing them and that they reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us, “The staff are excellent here. Without their support I would not be living in my own place. Most importantly for me they really respect my independence and have helped me to get this far."

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed a yearly satisfaction survey. People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to raise a concern or complain if they were unhappy.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a joined up way.

People completed a range of activities in and outside of the service regularly.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. We were therefore assured that the provider had taken steps to continually improve the service.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the ethos of the service.