MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning provides care and support for people living in their own houses and flats and for people living in a house of multi-occupation shared by other people in Leicester and Chesterfield. Houses in multiple occupation are properties where at least three people in more than one householder share toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities. The Care Quality Commission does not regulate the premises where people live.

Not everyone using MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning receives a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do so we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There were four people receiving a service and their packages of care varied with some people receiving support over a period of 24 hours, whilst others received support for differing number of hours on different days.

MacIntyre Leicester Life Long Learning was last inspected by the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2015. The overall rating for the service was good. This inspection has found the service has improved its rating from good to outstanding.

Family members of people using the service spoke positively about the service and the inclusive approach of developing and meeting people’s needs with their involvement. Family members commended and recognised a significant aspect of the service meeting their relative’s needs was the consistency of staff and the induction of staff in supporting their relative.

People receiving support from MacIntyre Leicester Life Long Learning received highly individualised person centred care. Support plans contained detailed and personalised care plans and we saw that people had been supported to have a full and meaningful life enjoying interests, taking part in new experiences and being active members of the local community. There was an emphasis on the need for good communication with a range of documentation being provided in way to assist people in accessing information.

The provider, registered manager and staff actively promoted a positive, inclusive and open culture, this approach has a positive impact on the quality of the service people received. The service worked in conjunction with other organisations to improve care for people with a learning disability. There were robust quality assurance systems in place which monitored the service, identifying potential areas for improvement, and actions were taken to improve these.

Staff were highly motivated and worked as a team and shared a common ethos of providing high quality, compassionate care with regard to people's individual wishes and support needs. Staff were valued, well supported and supervised by the management team.

Staff knew how to keep people safe, and how to report any concerns or incidents. The registered manager was proactive in learning from incidents and events, and had brought about changes to practices. There were enough staff to keep people safe, both within their home and the wider community. The registered manager and other staff were involved in individual projects to support their understanding and awareness of specific issues, which affected people’s well-being.

Risks to people were identified promptly and effective and robust plans were put in place to minimise these risks, involving relevant people, such as people's family members and other professionals. Comprehensive information was in place to guide staff, in the most effective approaches to use, which included Positive Behaviour Support, to enable staff to support people safely and reduce risk. Staff were knowledgeable about people's support and care and we observed staff putting into practice a consistent approach to their care.

People were supported to take their medicine by staff. People's capacity to make informed decisions about medicines had been assessed and best interest decisions had been made. P

This inspection took place on 9 December 2015 and was announced.

MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning is registered to provide personal care and support for people with a learning disability and autism. At the time of our inspection there were three people using the service who resided within their own home. People’s packages of care varied with some people receiving support over a period of 24 hours, whilst others received support for differing number of hours on different days.

People who used the service were unable to consent to our visiting and meeting with them to talk about the service. We were advised that our visiting some people within their own home may cause the people potential stress and anxiety, as people were not comfortable in the presence of people they did not know. We therefore spoke with people’s relatives.

MacIntyre Leicester LifeLong Learning 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.

People’s relatives told us they felt people’s safety was promoted and recognised by the support workers. Staff were trained in safeguarding (protecting people who use care services from abuse) and knew what to do if they were concerned about the welfare of any of the people who used the service. Where people were at risk, staff had the information they needed to help keep them safe.

People were supported by knowledgeable staff that had a good understanding as to people’s needs. Staff provided tailored and individual support to keep people safe and to provide support when their behaviour became challenging. People were supported to take ‘positive risks’ to promote their independence in leading a lifestyle of their choosing.

People were supported to manage their medicine with the support of staff where required. People in some instances were able to indicate the need to take medicine to help keep them calm down. People’s capacity to make informed decisions about taking some medicines had been assessed and best interest decisions had been made. This was to ensure people’s needs were met when they themselves were not able to promote their own safety and welfare by making an informed decision.

People using the service had a dedicated team of staff that provided support to them within their own home and the wider community. People’s views as to staff along with those of their relative were considered to ensure the staff that supported people had the appropriate skills and were able to develop a positive and trusting working relationship.

People received an effective service as people’s support plans provided clear guidance about their needs which were monitored and reviewed by the management team and senior support worker through the supervision and appraisal of staff and meetings. Systems were in place to ensure they effectively communicated with each other to provide a continuous and consistent service to people.

People were provided and supported in line with legislation and guidance. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. We found that capacity assessments had been carried out on aspects of people’s care and support. Where these assessments had identified that people did not have the capacity to make an informed decisions, then their relatives and others involved in their care had met and agreed a plan of action, referred to as a best interest meeting. The outcome of these meetings had been recorded and used to develop support plans which were regularly reviewed to ensure any decisions made on behalf of people remained in their best interest.

People were supported to with daily living tasks such as grocery shopping, meal preparation and cooking as part of their support packages. Staff encouraged people to eat a healthy diet and where necessary supported people in the eating of their meals. People’s dietary requirements to support them along with their likes and dislikes with regards to food and drink were recorded within their records.

Records showed staff where support was required liaised with people’s health care professionals to ensure that access the appropriate medical care and support.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and had developed positive and trusting relationships that been established between the people receiving a service, their relatives and staff. Staff told us that part of their role was to support people to access the wider community and to encourage social interaction and independence. Staff through discussion spoke of how they supported people’s privacy and dignity within the wider community, through the support they provided with people’s involvement and the promotion of their independence.

People were encouraged to influence the support they received through their own comments and that of their relatives. Meetings were held to ensure all interested parties, which included relatives, staff and external professionals regularly met to review the package of support people received to ensure it continued to meet their individual needs.

People’s support plans were tailored and individualised to meet their needs and reflected all aspects of their lives, including information and guidance as to the support they required within their own home and the wider community. People’s preference as to their hobbies, interests, goals and aspirations were also reflected.

Support plans were comprehensive which focused on the views of the person and how they wanted their support to be provided. There was an emphasis on the need for good communication to ensure people’s views were clearly understood.

People’s relatives were confident to raise concerns and told us that the regular contact they had with staff meant any issues could be discussed and ideas shared for the benefit of those using the service.

Staff spoke positively of the registered and front line manager (who had recently been appointed to manage the day to day running of the service) in the support they provided to them and that any issues were effectively managed to ensure people received a good service. Staff said there were effective systems which enabled them to communicate well with their colleagues to ensure that people received the support they needed.

The registered manager and front line manager had a comprehensive understanding as to the needs of people and were able to detail how staff provided support.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system which assessed the quality of the service. Information gathered as part of the quality audits was used to continually develop the service and look for ways in which people using the service could achieve greater autonomy.

We were unable to speak with people who used the service as we were unable to communicate with them. However, we spoke with a family member of one person. They told us they were satisfied with the care and support being provided and said that staffing was consistent.

We looked at the records of two people who used the service. We found that where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and support, suitable arrangements were in place for acting in accordance with the best interests of the person. We found care plans were detailed and thorough and provided clear guidance to staff about how the persons’ care should be delivered.

We spoke with two support workers and found they had a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and were enthusiastic about their roles.

Staff had been appropriately screened to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The service had an appropriate quality assurance system in place.

We attempted to carry out an unannounced inspection on 24 September 2012. However, staff were not available to assist us with the inspection as they were at a training event on this day. Therefore the provider had a short amount of notice that we would carry out the inspection the following day.

We spoke with two relatives of people who used the service. In the main they were both satisfied with the care and support that had been provided. One relative told us they were “very happy” with the service and that staff had taken the time to get to know the person and understand their needs. We were told that the service had supported the person to go swimming and use public transport; activities that had not been possible before they had used the service.

One relative told us that they had recently made a complaint about the service. We found that the service was responding appropriately to the complaint and taking action to investigate it.

We found that the service was compliant with the essential standards of quality and safety that we inspected.