Agency profile · CQC 1-2387968336

Freedom Support

↗ View on cqc.org.uk⌖ See nearby

Provider

Freedom Support Solutions Ltd

Leicestershire · East Midlands · Active since 11/0

GoodHome-care★ Owner-managed (director & PSC)RM: Norman, Marie

Overall rating

Good

safeGood

effectiveGood

caringGood

responsiveGood

well-ledGood

Last inspection

6 years ago

10/Sep/2019 - 00:00

Inspected 6 years ago

Overview Inspections (2)Findings (4)Owner-management Methodology

Inspection reports (2)

Inspection report · 2021-10-30
Framework: KLOE · 18 pages · 87 KB · PDF
Good
safe: Requires improvementeffective: Goodcaring: Goodresponsive: Goodwell-led: Good
Freedom Support received an overall Good rating at its November 2016 inspection, with four of five key questions rated Good; the Safe domain was rated Requires Improvement due to incomplete pre-employment checks, absent details on MAR charts, and equipment safety checks not completed within recommended timescales. The service demonstrated strong person-centred care, effective staff training, and responsive leadership, with the registered manager taking prompt corrective action on identified issues during and after the inspection.
Concerns (4)

moderateRecord keeping: “Medicine Administration Record (MAR) charts did not record details of medicines that one person was taking.”
moderateStaff competency: “We found that in two of the files we checked only one reference had been received. We also found that one staff member had started work before their DBS check had been received.”
moderateGovernance: “Fire extinguishers had been recorded as being checked every five months [against a recommended monthly check]. Testing of electrical equipment had not taken place within timescales recommended by the HSE.”
minorMedication management: “Staff were monitoring the temperature of the cupboard where medicines were stored. However these were only being checked twice a month.”

Strengths

· People and relatives consistently reported feeling safe and that staff knew how to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm.
· Staff received good-quality training, induction and regular supervision to support effective care delivery.
· People were treated with dignity and respect; privacy was actively promoted by staff.
· Care plans were highly person-centred, written with involvement from people themselves, and reviewed monthly.
· People were supported to develop independence, pursue work placements, social activities and community involvement.

Quality-Statement breakdown (21)

safe: Safeguarding and protection from abuseGood
safe: Risk assessment and managementGood
safe: Staffing levels and deploymentGood
safe: Safe recruitment practicesRequires improvement
safe: Medicines management and recordingRequires improvement
safe: Equipment and environment safety checksRequires improvement
effective: Staff training and developmentGood
effective: Supervision and inductionGood
effective: Mental Capacity Act and consentGood
effective: Nutrition and healthcare accessGood
caring: Kindness, compassion and dignityGood
caring: Involvement in decisions about careGood
caring: Promoting independenceGood
responsive: Person-centred care planningGood
responsive: Review of care and goal-settingGood
responsive: Access to activities and communityGood
responsive: Complaints handlingGood
well-led: Leadership and management cultureGood
well-led: Staff support and engagementGood
well-led: Quality monitoring and governanceGood
well-led: Involvement of people and relatives in service developmentGood

Inspection report · 2019-09-10

Framework: KLOE · 16 pages · 91 KB · PDF

Good

safe: Goodeffective: Goodcaring: Goodresponsive: Goodwell-led: Good

Freedom Support achieved a Good rating across all five key questions at its August 2019 inspection, maintaining or improving on its previous ratings. The service demonstrated strong person-centred care, effective safeguarding, proactive governance, and meaningful community partnerships that supported people to achieve their goals and live independently.

Strengths

· People were involved in their own risk assessments and care planning, with care plans informing staff how to mitigate known risks.
· Staff promoted independence through person-centred approaches, such as using pictures and time prompts to support self-administration of medicines.
· Strong safeguarding culture with appropriate referrals, clear records, and staff who demonstrated understanding of their responsibilities.
· Staff received tailored training for specific needs (e.g. diabetes, epilepsy) and regular supervision that encouraged raising concerns.
· Registered manager fostered an open, inclusive culture with proactive quality monitoring, audits, and a strong learning culture.