The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Haringey Community Reablement Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

40 Cumberland Road, Wood Green, London, N22 7SG (020) 8489 2338

Provided and run by:
London Borough of Haringey

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

30 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This inspection was announced. We informed the provider two working days beforehand to ensure that key members of the management team would be available.

Haringey Community Reablement Service provides a domiciliary care service to adults of any age in their own homes. The service aims to offer a period of intensive reablement for up to six weeks to help people regain their independence after a period of ill health or hospital stay.

We inspected the service on 30 July 2014. At the time of our visit, the service was providing personal care for approximately 30 people living in the London Borough of Haringey. However, the short-term nature of this reablement service meant that up to 600 people a year used the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Feedback from people using the service and involved community professionals indicated that the service’s aim of supporting people with regaining independence was being achieved. Comments included, “ Overall they were good” and “I cannot praise them highly enough.” Most people felt they would recommend the service to friends and family.

People told us they felt safe when using the service. The service promptly assessed risk to new people using the service, and took action where concerns were identified. Allegations of abuse were responded to appropriately, and the service took action to help protect people and minimise the risk of reoccurrence.           

The service had an established staff team since its inception in 2012. Staff were comprehensively trained when the service began and there was ongoing training. They received good support from the management team. There were enough staff to visit people at their preferred times. This helped to provide support to people with regaining their independence.

People told us that care workers were caring, kind and treated them respectfully. We saw examples of how the service respected and valued people. People were made to feel that they mattered. 

The service listened to people and responded to their views, for example, in acquiring equipment to aid independence and with arranging visits at times requested by people. The service liaised well with community professionals in support of meeting people’s needs.

Most people said they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to, and that the service responded if they had raised concerns. We found that the service investigated complaints well and took action where needed.

Some aspects of the service were well managed. A service development plan was in place in response to the views of people using the service and other stakeholders. The manager had visited the reablement team in a neighbouring local authority, to help develop and share good practice and feed into the development plan.

However, there was a lack of consistency in how well the service was managed and led. For example, there was little oversight of the supervision of individual staff members, or of checks of the quality of their support to people, to ensure that each staff member received effective support and guidance. The provider did not consistently make checks of improvements to the service, to ensure that planned improvements had been effectively implemented. This did not represent a breach of regulations but failed to assure us of a consistently well-led service.

16 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People told us that they received a good service. One person said the service was of "excellent quality". They also told us that the staff who worked for this service were "helpful and polite". Another person told us that the service they received was "on the whole very good". People told us that they did have some issues with the timings of visits and this issue was acknowledged by the registered manager who had acted to improve the service accordingly.

A person also told us that the service had a positive outcome for them, stating "they helped me to be more independent".

We found that the service respected and involved people who used it and that people's care and welfare were protected and promoted.

The provider also attempted at all times to safeguard people who used the service. However, we noted that the provider had not reported a safeguarding alert that had been raised with the local authority to the Care Quality Commission.

We found that the provider had ensured that it undertook all necessary checks before appointing staff to work with the vulnerable adults who received support from this service. We also found that the provider ensured that it checked and monitored the quality of service being offered to people.

We found that the service worked well with community professionals who supported and supervised the work of its staff.

17 October 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency as part of a targeted inspection programme of domiciliary care agencies with particular regard to how people's dignity was upheld and how they can make choices about their care.

We used telephone interviews and home visits to people who use the service and to their carers (a relative or friend) to gain views about the service. We spoke on the telephone to eight people who use the service or their carers and visited two people in their own homes.

The reablement service is a specialist service provided to people for a period of six weeks. The service user guide includes the Department of Health definition of reablement describing 'Services for people with poor physical or mental health to help them accommodate their illness by learning or re-learning the skills necessary for daily living.'

All the people we spoke with were very satisfied with the quality of service and felt safe receiving care. People were positive about the skills of the staff who visited them. They told us that they were treated respectfully. People said that reablement workers understood their rights and the need to have their dignity and privacy maintained. People said that their care was highly individualised and they were supported to gain or regain independence skills. Everyone we spoke to said that their reablement workers listened to them, took account of their preferences, and supported their independence. One person said "The service is excellent,' others told us 'I'm happy they do very well,' 'They help me a lot,' and 'They are polite and respectful.' One person who was approaching the end of their six week service told us 'I can do it on my own now.'

Everyone was aware of their reablement plan and the information it contained about them. People said that staff from the service came to review their care regularly.