Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Creative Support Limited - Hartlepool Service, Yarm Road, Stockton-on-Tees.

Creative Support Limited - Hartlepool Service in Yarm Road, Stockton-on-Tees is a Homecare agencies specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, learning disabilities and personal care. The last inspection date here was 23rd March 2018

Creative Support Limited - Hartlepool Service is managed by Creative Support Limited who are also responsible for 112 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Creative Support Limited - Hartlepool Service
      2 Innovation Court
      Yarm Road
      Stockton-on-Tees
      TS18 3DA
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      0

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Service Provider:

    Creative Support Limited

This provider also manages:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-03-23
    Last Published 2018-03-23

Local Authority:

    Stockton-on-Tees

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

20th February 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 20 February 2018 and was announced.

This service provides care and support to four people living in three ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

At the last inspection in December 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Risks were well managed. People were encouraged to be independent and to take everyday risks. Risk assessments were in place to cover various aspects of people’s daily lives, which included guidance for staff on how to manage identified risks.

Relatives told us they were happy with the service provided. Sufficient experienced and trained staff were deployed to ensure people’s needs were met. The provider was in the process of recruiting new staff to maintain this. People were supported by staff that were trained to carry out their roles effectively. Staff received mandatory training as well as training which was tailored to the needs of those they supported. All staff received an induction and an on-going programme of supervision and appraisal. Staff felt supported.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported, their likes and dislikes and interests.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines. We have made a recommendation about the recording of when required (PRN) medicines.

Systems were in place, and had been followed to reduce any risks of abuse and harm. Staff told us they would be confident to raise any concerns they had and they would be acted upon. An effective recruitment and selection process was in place. The provider carried out monthly health and safety checks to ensure people lived in a safe environment.

Accidents and incidents, although very few, were accurately recorded and reported and any lessons learned were shared with staff.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People's rights were protected by staff who under stood the Mental Capacity Act and how this applied to their role.

Relatives and people were involved in the planning of their care. Information was provided in easy read format to assist people in understanding the care available to them. The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and relatives were aware of how to make a complaint.

People were supported in maintaining a healthy and balanced diet. People were involved in the preparation of meals. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social external professionals.

Activities were developed around people’s interests. People were supported to maintain relationships and access the local community.

Although staff felt supported by colleagues they said they felt undervalued be higher management and morale was just okay.

The provider understood the importance of monitoring the quality of the service and reviewing systems to identify any lessons learnt. The service consulted with people, relatives and staff to capture their views about the service.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We carried out this inspection on 3 December 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care services and we needed to be sure that the manager would be in.

The service had a registered manager who had been registered with the Care Qualtiy Commission since November 2015. 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.

Creative Support Limited Hartlepool provides supported living and domiciliary care services for people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. The service has its registered office at Innovation Court, Stockton-on-Tees. However, the service actually delivers personal care in three supported living type services in the Hartlepool area. Each of the supported living services provides support to two people, who live in shared bungalows or houses with their own tenancy agreements. The people using the service following an assessment by the local authority, receive a combination of individual and shared support hours, with support provided on a twenty-four hour basis in all three services.

The Creative Support Limited Hartlepool service also provides a day service and floating community support services, but at the time of this inspection these activities did not fall under our regulatory remit as the people did not receive personal care and we do not inspect day services.

At the last inspection in October 2014 they had a breach in Regulation 13, People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. The registered provider sent us an action plan stating they would be compliant by 31 October 2014.

At this inspection we found that appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines and the people received their medicines safely. People were supported with their medicines by suitably trained and experienced staff. Medicines were now managed safely and securely.

Staff were trained and competent to provide the support individuals required. Although staff demonstrated an understanding of Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, they had not received training in this area . We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people. Staff did not received regular supervision and appraisals. The registered manager was aware of this and putting a system in place.

Due to people’s communication needs we were unable to gain some of their views about the service and therefore we spoke with relatives.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people who used the service from the risk of harm. Staff were aware of different types of abuse, what constituted poor practice and action to take if abuse was suspected.

Risk assessments were in place for people using the service and care workers.

Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People who could not make specific decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected. Their care plans showed that when decisions had been made about their care, where they lacked capacity, these had been made in people’s best interests.

The registered provider carried out assessments to identify health and support needs of people. Each person had a person centred plan which showed how they wished to be supported. People were supported to maintain good health and have access to healthcare professionals and services.

People had been included in planning their own menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted on.

From discussions with a relative and documents we looked at, we saw people who used the service or their families were included in planning and agreeing to the care provided at the service. People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. Staff reviewed plans at least monthly with input from the person who was supported.

Staff demonstrated they knew; the people they were supporting, the choices they had made about their support and how they wished to live their lives. All this information was fully documented in each individual care plan.

People knew how to complain and we saw people had regular feedback opportunities to discuss how they felt about the service. Each person had a key-worker who checked regularly if people were happy or wanted to raise any concerns.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Staff told us that the service had an open, inclusive and positive culture.

 

 

Latest Additions: