Background to this inspection
Updated
10 May 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’
Inspection team:
The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.
Service and service type:
Mid Surrey Area Reablement Service is a domiciliary care agency. On the day of our inspection, 150 people were using the service and receiving a regulated activity. Some people were living with dementia and other medical conditions. The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service so we needed to be sure that they would be in. Inspection site visit activity took place on 18 March 2019. We visited the office location to see the registered manager and office staff, and to review care records and policies and procedures.
What we did:
We reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the previous inspection report and notifications since the last inspection. Notifications are changes, events and incidents that the service must inform us about. We used information the provider sent us in their Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection, we spoke with three staff members including the registered manager. We reviewed records including five people’s care records, five staff recruitment files, records around medicine management, policies around the running of the service, and how the organisation audits the quality of the service. Following the inspection, we spoke with two people who were using the service, one relative and two staff members by telephone. We also received feedback from two healthcare professionals who work alongside the service.
Updated
10 May 2019
About the service:
Mid Surrey Area Reablement Service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a rehabilitation service to people over the age of 18 for up to six weeks.
Not everyone using Mid Surrey Area Reablement Service Limited receives 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 we also take into account any wider social care provided. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People’s experience of using this service:
People and relatives told us they felt they and their loved ones were safe, and staff were aware of their role in safeguarding people from abuse. Risks to people were appropriately recorded and managed. There were a sufficient number of staff to meet people’s needs, and checks were in place to ensure that staff were recruited safely.
People’s rights were protected in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Integrated working with healthcare professionals meant that referrals were completed in a timely manner where required. Staff were up to date with training and received supervision on a regular basis. Staff felt that the communication within the service was effective.
People and relatives told us staff were extremely kind and caring, and were respectful of their homes. People were actively involved in reviews and decisions around their care. The core value of the service was to promote independence, with 60% of people reaching the baseline they had been at before becoming unwell. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity by delivering personal care behind closed door.
People received person centred care that supported them to reach their own personal goals. The service had not received any complaints, but people were aware how to raise a concern if they needed to. Although it was rare for the service to deliver end of life care, staff had received training in preparation and had links with the local hospice.
Staff felt the management team were approachable and felt valued. Robust quality checks allowed the service to identify and resolve any issues or improvements. People and staff were asked for feedback on the service regularly, with any suggestions from this being implemented. There was a proactive approach to signposting people and relatives to local organisations that could offer on going support once their reablement support was over. The provider had run a project which they hoped would improve the quality of the service.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated Good (27 September 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a scheduled comprehensive inspection. We inspect all services rated as 'Good' within 30 months to ensure that we regularly monitor and review the quality and safety of the service people receive.