Karrek Community

“People were supported by one or two members of staff with visit duration varying from 30 minutes to 24 hour support. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting approximately 60 people.”

“The assessment looked at all of the key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We have rated the service good overall and outstanding in well led.”

“People were protected from abuse and staff knew how to manage risks to ensure people were protected from harm. Staff were provided with clear guidance on techniques that had been previously used successfully to support people and used these approaches effectively during our observations.”

“Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff employed to provide the planned support. However, a small group of staff were regularly working excessive hours. These working practices meant people may have been receiving support from staff who were tired. This put them at risk of receiving poor quality care. The provider had identified these risks prior to the inspection and, following feedback, additional processes were introduced to limit staff working hours.”

“Medicines were managed safely and given as prescribed. Staff had access to gloves and aprons when required and understood how to manage infection control risks.”

“Managers and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and people were supported to make their own decisions and choices where possible. People were able to change their minds in relation to previous decisions and staff supported people to be as independent as possible. There were appropriate procedures to ensure people’s safety where they were known to regularly make risky and unwise decisions.”

“People’s care needs were assessed and identified before support was provided and care plans gave staff clear guidance on how to support people. Care records demonstrated planned care had been provided and that necessary referrals for external support had been made promptly.”

“Staff had the skills necessary to meet people’s needs and were well motivated by their managers. Staff training was regularly updated and team meetings held to enable information and learning to be shared. All staff received regular formal supervision from managers during which career development was encouraged.”

“Quality assurance systems were effective, and the provider’s directors supported the service’s leadership team effectively.”