An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability. We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people; and providers must have regard to it. First Point 24 provides personal care and support to people who require assistance in their own home. This service is a domiciliary care agency. At the time of our assessment 72 people were being supported by the service. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. We carried out our on-site responsive assessment on 06 May 2025, offsite activity started on 29 April 2025 and ended on 8 May 2025. The assessment was completed to follow up on the last assessment to see if improvements had been made. We found the service had made improvements and are no longer in breach of regulations. The registered manager now had systems in place to monitor the service, which provided good oversight to monitor and improve outcomes for people. This assessment was announced.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-5531920920.
First Point 24 received a 'Requires Improvement' rating following a focused inspection of the safe and well-led key questions, triggered by concerns about safeguarding management. Breaches of Regulation 17 (Good governance) and Regulation 19 (Fit and proper persons employed) were identified, with shortfalls in recruitment checks, risk documentation, medicines care planning, and timely CQC notifications.
Concerns (7)
criticalGovernance: “The provider had not implemented a robust system of auditing prior to July 2023. Statutory notifications had not always been submitted promptly.”
criticalSafeguarding: “The provider had not always ensured all notifications had been submitted to CQC in a timely manner.”
criticalRecord keeping: “Staff did not always have a full employment history listed and references were not always dated or verified.”
moderateCare planning: “Risk assessments did not always provide sufficient detail about people's medical conditions, their impact on the person or the associated risks.”
moderateMedication management: “People did not have specific medicines care plans or risk assessments to explain what medicines they were prescribed or the support they required.”
moderateSupervision / appraisal: “Supervisions did not always take place regularly and there was a lack of detail in supervision and appraisal records.”
minorPerson-centred care: “People's care plans did not always detail what their preferences were for the timing of their care visits.”
Strengths
· Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse and had received safeguarding training.
· People and relatives reported feeling safe and that care visits were not rushed.
· The provider worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to meet people's needs.
· Staff were provided with medicines training and an electronic system was used to record medicine administration with monthly audits.
· Staff completed infection prevention and control training and PPE was available and used appropriately.