Ena Hughes Resource Centre is based in Oldham and provides care and support to people living in their own homes, either on an independent supported living basis, or as part of a shared lives scheme, where people lived with carers and their carer's families. People in receipt of care on an independent supported living basis generally received support from care staff 24 hours a day and some received enablement support by third party organisations, to access the community. The last inspection of this service was in April 2014, when the provider was found to be compliant in all of the regulations that we inspected at that time.

This inspection took place on 10 and 11 October 2016 and was announced. The provider was given a minimum of 48 hours’ notice because they support people with learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in and also that office staff would be able to assist us. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Two registered managers were in post at the time of our inspection, both of whom had been registered with the Commission to manage the carrying on of the regulated activity since October 2013. One registered manager was responsible for the delivery of the regulated activity under the supported living side of the service and the other, under the shared lives element of the service. 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.

Not all of the people in receipt of care could communicate with us verbally, but those who could told us they were happy with the support they received. They said they liked the staff team or the carers who supported them and we saw they enjoyed good relationships. People told us they felt safe when they were cared for and we had no concerns about how staff or carers supported people when we visited them in their own homes.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place for staff and carers to follow and records showed they had taken appropriate action to safeguard people from harm and abuse when certain circumstances arose. Staff and carers were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable adults and records confirmed they had been trained in this topic. Risks that people had been exposed to in their daily lives and within the environments of their homes had been assessed and mitigated against to ensure they remained safe. Accidents and incidents were dealt with appropriately and measures were put in place where necessary to prevent repeat events.

Recruitment procedures were thorough and included suitable checks to ensure that staff and carers employed to deliver care were of suitable character to work with vulnerable adults. Medicines were managed safely and reflected best practice guidance. Staffing levels were determined by the level of support each individual needed and when we visited people in their homes these levels were appropriate to people's needs.

Staff and carers were aware of people's needs and effective plans were in place to support them to meet these needs. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained current and up to date. They were very person-centred and described in detail how staff should support people, the risks associated with their needs, their personal behaviour traits, their likes, dislikes and any habits. People were supported to attend medical appointments as and when necessary and specialist input into their care was evident where needed. People's conditions and their care was monitored through a range of tools to ensure that the care delivered remained appropriate and that when changes were needed these were made.

Care staff and care

Ena Hughes Resource Centre provided two distinct services from the one location. These were “Shared Lives” and “Supported Living”. Each had their own dedicated manager and staffing. On this inspection visit we focused on the Shared Lives service – formally known as Adult Placement.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. This summary addresses five key questions: is the service safe; is the service effective; is the service caring; is the service responsive and is the service well led?

The summary is based on a visit to the service offices where we looked at records and talked to the manager and staff (care coordinators). Following the visit we contacted, by telephone, a sample of people who used the service and a sample of the people who supported them (carers).

The full report contains the evidence to support this summary.

Is the service safe?

The service had written policies and procedures in connection with safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff had received training in safeguarding which meant they understood what to look out for and what they should do if they had any concerns. Care coordinators maintained regular contact with the carers and people who used the service to monitor progress and help ensure the carers and people using the service were safe.

Health and safety assessments were undertaken and periodically reviewed to help ensure the physical safety of people using the service.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and had good relationships with the carers who supported them. People knew how to get additional support if it was needed.

Is the service effective?

The service undertook careful assessments of the needs of people planning to use the service. The process for ‘matching’ carers and people using the service was thorough and involved everyone in a meaningful way. No one was pressurised to agree to a placement if they had reservations. People were listened to and their opinions were valued by the care coordinators and management.

There was regular contact between the care coordinators and the carers to help ensure the service was working well.

There were effective systems to record and track information. This meant that management had good access to information about how well expectations about frequency of training, support and reviews were being met. Audits of other information were also undertaken and acted on.

Everyone who we spoke with was positive about the service and support provided. Comments included “its brilliant”, “very helpful team” and “everybody is marvellous”.

Is the service caring?

Care coordinators spoke with passion about the importance of the person centred focus of the service. This was supported by the positive views expressed by the people using the service.

The matching process between carers and people using the service was thorough. It was designed to help ensure the ‘match’ was effective in providing consistent support and care over a potentially lengthy time. People’s likes and dislikes were recorded and formed an important part of the matching process.

People were encouraged to share their views. Their opinions were listened to. All people using the service spoke positively about their relationships with their carers.

Is the service responsive?

We did not look specifically at the service’s complaints procedure. However people using the service and the carers told us they knew how to contact the care coordinators if they needed to. They also told us that they believed they would be listened to and their opinions were valued.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. These would enable the service to identify if any modifications to the service would be beneficial.

There was regular contact between the care coordinators and the carers and people using the service. This enabled any problems, or the requirement for extra support, to be identified.

Is the service well led?

There were clear lines of accountability within the service.

Communication within the service was good. This enabled the care coordinators, carers and people using the service to have confidence that they knew who they needed to contact in different circumstances, and that any required support would be forthcoming.

Quality monitoring and audit systems were well maintained to help ensure management information was up to date and accessible.

Care coordinators received regular supervision and described their managers as supportive and accessible. One commented “without the managers’ support I’d not be as good as I am”.