Date of assessment: 14 to 29 April 2025. GUTU, also known by the provider’s name Time4U Ltd, provides care and support to people living in supported living houses and flats. The service supports younger and older adults with a learning disability and autistic people, as well as those with physical and mental health support needs. At the time of this assessment there were 31 people receiving personal care support from this service. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is to help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. People received support tailored to their individual needs and risks and staff knew them well. Staff recently underwent additional training, and their competence and practice were regularly monitored by the management. People were supported by consistent staff teams and received safe help with their medicines, to do things they liked and to build their skills to become more independent. Staff treated people with kindness and respect and involved them in their care. People were supported to have equitable access to other healthcare and social care services and staff supported them to communicate in a way which met their needs. The provider now had clear systems for speaking up and regularly asked people’s relatives, staff and other stakeholders for their feedback on the service. The governance and quality assurances systems and processes had been reviewed and improved. Staff felt supported by the leadership which was approachable and visible in the service. The provider had now developed an improved organisational and staff support structures and reviewed their recording and reporting systems. However, some service improvement actions had not yet been fully completed or embedded at the time of this assessment. For example, further work was required around some elements of people’s support records, learning and sharing lessons from incidents and accidents and service design to align it with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-2627941117.
GUTU (Time 4 U Ltd) received an overall rating of Requires Improvement for the third consecutive inspection, with continued regulatory breaches under Regulation 12 (risk management) and Regulation 17 (governance and records) of the HSCA 2014. While medicines management, safeguarding, staffing, infection control, and person-centred support were strengths, persistent failures in risk assessment documentation, record accuracy, and audit robustness remained unresolved since the previous inspection.
Concerns (6)
criticalCare planning: “Risk assessments did not always have information staff needed to keep people safe. Risks in relation to people's individual staffing arrangements were not always documented.”
criticalRecord keeping: “Records were not dated and they had been overwritten. For example, the same information appeared several days running for one person.”
criticalGovernance: “The provider's auditing processes had not detected the issues found during inspection in relation to risk management and records.”
moderateIncident learning: “The management team had not fully understood their responsibilities to ensure compliance in relation to duty of candour... the provider had not formally written and apologised when these had occurred.”
moderateCare planning: “Support plans did not always include the information about people's support around continence. Records of mental capacity assessments were not always clear.”
minorComplaints handling: “Where complaints had been raised these had not always been responded to within the timescales set out in the provider's complaints policy. A relative had made a formal complaint and this had not been formally resolved.”
Strengths
· Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and knew how to apply it; safeguarding concerns had been reported to the local authority.
· Medicines were well managed with complete MARs, competency checks, and people supported to be as independent as possible with their medicines.
· Sufficient staffing levels with consistent staff deployment; people and relatives reported consistent, familiar carers.
· Staff were recruited safely with sufficient employment history checks carried out.
· Infection prevention and control practices were safe; staff wore PPE and had completed IPC training.
Quality-Statement breakdown (16)
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementRequires improvement
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Using medicines safelyGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and controlGood
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsGood