Cambridge Supported Living Scheme is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes.

This unannounced inspection took place on 22 September 2016. There was one person receiving care at that time.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 registered manager is also registered to run another of the provider’s services, Cambridgeshire County Council – 40/44 Russell Street, Cambridge, from the same address.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s safety was managed effectively. Staff were aware of the actions to take to report their concerns. People’s risks were assessed and measures were in place to minimise the risk of harm occurring. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and of how to protect people from harm.

Staff were only employed after comprehensive and satisfactory pre-employment checks had been obtained. There were sufficient staff to ensure people’s needs were met safely and flexibly. Staff were well trained and had the skills and knowledge they needed to support people effectively. Staff were well supported by the registered manager.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that there were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making. Staff respected people’s decisions about their care and how they lived their lives. Systems were in place so that best interest decisions could be made if people were assessed as not having the mental capacity to make specific decisions. Staff were aware of the key legal requirements of the MCA.

People’s health, care and nutritional needs were effectively met and monitored. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to have access to the health care services they needed.

People received care and support from staff who were kind, empathetic and caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to be involved in decisions about the service provided. People were involved in every day decisions about their care.

People’s care records were detailed and provided staff with sufficient guidance to ensure consistent care to each person. Staff supported the person to maintain and develop community links.

The registered manager was experienced and staff were managed to provide people with safe and appropriate care. The registered manager was approachable and supportive. People had access to information on how to make a complaint. The registered manager monitored the quality of people’s care and the service provided.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five key questions we always ask:

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you would like to see the evidence that supports the summary, please read the full report.

We spoke with both people who received personal care from the service at the time of our inspection. We also spoke with two members of staff.

Is the service safe?

The two people who used the service that we spoke with told us that they felt safe with the staff. They told us that they consented to their plan of care and would feel able to tell staff if they were not happy about something.

Records showed that staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. The two members of staff we spoke with were clear about how they obtained people's consent to their care and support and the importance of people being supported to make informed choices about their lives. This demonstrated that there were suitable arrangements in place to obtain the consent of people who used the service.

We saw that risk assessments had been completed relating to the environment and the care provision which ensured that care could be provided safely to people. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found there were effective recruitment and selection practices in place. This ensured that only suitable staff were appointed to provide care for people.

Is the service effective?

Care was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people’s safety and welfare and maximised their independence. We spoke with the two people who received personal care from this service. Both told us they were happy with the care and support they received from staff.

We saw there was information in place to ensure that staff were clear about the care and support that was required at each visit. Staff told us they also received verbal information from staff who knew the person if they had not met the person before.

Is the service caring?

Care plans provided detailed guidance to staff about the care and support people required. People told us they liked the staff who provided their care and support and that they felt listened to.

People who responded to the provider’s survey said they thought support workers had the knowledge and ability that was required to support them in an appropriate and professional way.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service, their representatives, and staff, were asked for their views about the care provided and these were acted on. People told us they felt able to tell staff if they were unhappy about something and felt they were listened to.

Is the service well-led?

A registered manager had been in post for over a year. At the time of our inspection the registered manager was on extended leave and the service was being managed by the deputy manager.

The staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by senior staff. They said they had received comprehensive training and support, including one to one and group meetings.

There were effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others and to assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We saw that the manager further maintained an overview of the quality of the service by ensuring that various checks were carried out regularly. For example, the manager carried out checks to make sure that people’s care plans were completed and reviewed appropriately.

We found that the provider was compliant with the regulations in all the areas we assessed. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We spoke with five people who were provided with support by the agency. They all told us they were very satisfied with the care and support they received. One person commented that, “The carers are kind and cheerful and they do a good job”. People told us that they were able to discuss any changes to their care and felt that their views were listened to. We saw a sample of care plans which showed that people’s preferences were taken into account about how they liked their care and support to be delivered.

There were thorough staff recruitment procedures in place to ensure that only appropriate staff who had the required checks were employed. Staff received appropriate support and training to provide the care and support required by the people who used the service.

Quality assurance procedures were in place to monitor the running of the agency and people who used the service were able to raise any issues and concerns with the management team.

There is a complaints procedure in place. All the people we spoke with told us they knew who to talk to if they were unhappy with the service. However, they all told us that they had no complaints to make.

We found that staff were well trained and provided good support to people in their own homes. People were supported in promoting their independence. One person told us, "I only need help with managing money- not much else." The member of staff we spent time with on the day demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding.

Care plans were person centred and demonstrated that the service understood how to meet individual needs. People told us that they felt involved in planning their care and spoke highly of the service. However, to maintain compliance improvements are needed to ensure people's documentation is consistently up to date and signed.

We found that the provider was not compliant with assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. Although some systems were in place, we did not find evidence that the views of people using the service or their representatives were regularly sought. There was no evidence that audits were undertaken.