About the service:

Fairplay – Home based support provides overnight respite care for up to two people and provides a domiciliary care service for these people. It also provides care and support for children and younger adults up to the age of twenty-five. The service is operated from a day care centre managed by Fairplay. The provider also operates a day care facility and support for siblings from this centre; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care' when a domiciliary or residential service is being provided. At the time of our inspection 15 people were receiving personal care as part of their care package.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received safe care from staff who knew them well. Potential risks to people's health, well-being or safety had been assessed to help keep people safe. Staff helped people to move safely using suitable equipment and understood the safe moving and handling techniques that were needed. Each person who had a small team of staff who provided their care. There were suitable arrangements for the safe storage, management and disposal of medicines and people were supported to take their medicines by trained staff. There were systems in place to help promote infection control and lessons were learnt where things went wrong.

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 support this practice. Staff received training to support them to be able to care for people safely. People were supported to have their specialist diets and staff understood how to ensure they received the nutrition they needed. The overnight accommodation was part of a day care provision and people felt this met their needs.

People had regular staff who provided care and positive relationships had been developed. Where people received care in their home, the staff arrived on time and stayed for the duration of the call. People had not experienced any missed calls. Staff knew how to provide care in a way that met their needs, routines and preferences and this was reviewed with them and their family. Staff had received an induction, ongoing training and had regular opportunities to discuss their work, training and development needs with the registered manager.

People’s diverse needs had been assessed and staff had guidance of how to meet people’s needs and achieve positive outcomes. The registered manager had developed positive links with external professionals and strived to continually develop the service, based on best practice guidance.

Staff respected and promoted people’s dignity and made sure they supported them in the way they wished, whilst encouraging them to remain as independent as possible.

The service was managed in a way that responded to people’s changing needs. Regular meetings were held for people and their family to share their opinions about the service and facilities provided. People participated in activities that interested them. The provider understood how any concerns and complaints raised by people needed to be investigated and resolved.

People and relatives knew the registered manager by name and felt that they were approachable with any problems. Staff felt the management team was approachable and that they could talk to them at any time. There were a range of checks undertaken routinely to help ensure that the service was safe. Satisfaction surveys were distributed to people who used the service, their friends and relatives, staff members and health professionals to gather feedback about how the service performed.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good; there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the serv

Relatives told us they valued the support they received and were complimentary about the staff. Several people described the service as absolutely brilliant. All the people we spoke with confirmed that they and their children were treated with respect and that they were kept informed and involved in key decisions. One person told us “Our worker is like family”.

We found that people were involved in making decisions and that choices were offered .We also found that relatives were confident that their child was well supported and cared for. Relatives described the service as fantastic, lovely and very good. One told us “It’s a godsend” and another “I don’t know what I’d do without it”. All the people we spoke with confirmed the service was reliable and that staff were punctual and stayed for the allocated time. One person said “They do a great job”. All the relatives we spoke with confirmed that they were confident about leaving their child with the staff and felt they were able to deal properly with any medical emergencies that arose.

We found that the premises were well maintained and were suitable for the needs of disabled people.

We inspected this service on 17 & 18 November 2015. This was an unannounced inspection. Our last inspection took place in November 2013 and we found no concerns with the areas we looked at. The service provides personal care to children and young people up to 25 years of age who are living with complex physical, emotional and mental health care needs. They offer support to families, in their own home and on a sessional basis at their purpose built premises near Chesterfield town centre. It also provides overnight respite care for up to two young people.

There were 17 children and young people who used the service on the day of our inspection. This included caring for a small number of young people in their own homes.

There was a registered manager in post. The service is required to 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.

People told us that they were supported to keep safe. We saw that medicine was administered and managed safely. Risk was assessed and where possible reduced so that people could be supported to live as independently as possible. There were sufficient staff employed to ensure that people could do this safely. People were supported to make choices and were encouraged to participate in a range of activities. People had their care plans reviewed regularly and where relevant families were involved. The provider had a complaints policy in place and people we spoke with knew how to use it. We saw there were clear directions on who to complaint to. These were in a public place where young people and their representatives had access to.

There were sufficient, skilled staff to support people at all times and there were suitable recruitment processes in place. Staff were well trained and used their training effectively to support people.

Most of the people cared for were children, however the staff understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity. The service was well managed and staff were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service and understood the provider’s visions and values.