We carried out a review of the data available to us about Surrey and Hants Domiciliary Care Agency on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Surrey and Hants Domiciliary Care Agency, you can give feedback on this service.
Surrey and Hants Domiciliary Care Agency provides care and support to people living in supported living settings, and to people living in their own homes in the community, so that they can live as independently as possible and remain in their homes. The service supports people with a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection eight people received support.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were asked for their consent to their care and staff supported them to make their own decisions.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were happy with the care they received and felt relaxed with staff, they told us they were treated with kindness. People said they felt safe, were well supported and there were sufficient staff to care for them. A relative told us, “Everything is fantastic and positive, it comforts me to know that they are not just caring for [my relative] now, but looking towards his future as well”.
People’s independence was promoted and they told us their needs were met. People had a regular team of care staff who arrived on time and knew them well. A relative told us, “They give [my relative] the opportunity to do so many different things. Everything they do is with her in mind and what makes her happy and independent”.
People felt they were offered choice in the way their care was delivered and that they had no concerns around their dignity and privacy in their own homes being respected. A relative told us, “The care is really good, I can’t fault them. I know that [my relative] is happy and that’s the best thing, that makes me happy”.
Staff had received essential training and feedback from people indicated that they knew the best way to care for people in line with their needs and preferences. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The provider had systems of quality assurance to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement. These systems also supported people to stay safe by assessing and mitigating risks, ensuring that people were cared for in a person-centred way and that the provider learned from any mistakes.
People told us they thought the service was well managed and they received high quality care that met their needs and improved their wellbeing from dedicated and enthusiastic staff. A relative told us, “They are a big company, but you wouldn’t know it, as they are really personal and it feels like they are a small company just specialising for [my relative]”.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 11 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Surrey and Hants Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care and support for people with a learning disability living in the community. The care and support is provided for people living in their own homes and one supported living service for three people. People who live in the shared supported living properties have individual tenancy agreements. At the time of the inspection they were providing support for 20 people however only three people were receiving personal care. The level of personal care provided is minimal and most of the support they provide is about learning to live and work independently within society. We based our inspection at The Old Grove Centre, where all the people receiving a service visited at some time throughout the week. We met two people receiving personal care, and spoke with one person receiving support that did not involve personal care. We also observed how people interacted with staff and whether they were relaxed and happy.
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. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had a clear knowledge and understanding of their personal needs, likes and dislikes. Staff had a very in-depth understanding of people’s needs and how they preferred to be supported both in their home and within the community. People were able to talk with senor staff in the office at any time as there was an open door policy and all staff in the office knew them well. People who received care and support from Surrey and Hants Domiciliary Care Agency indicated they were happy with the service provided. Two parents of people being supported by the agency said the registered manager and staff were open and approachable and cared about personal preferences and maintaining independence.
People’s care needs were recorded and reviewed regularly with senior staff and the person receiving the care. All support plans contained evidence to show they had been consulted about their care and they had agreed the content of their care plan. Support workers had comprehensive information and guidance in support plans to deliver consistent care the way people preferred. We found staff were motivated and committed to ensuring people received the agreed level of support. Each person had a core team of support staff specifically assigned to them. This ensured people were familiar with the staff who supported them and had managed to build trusting relationships.
Staff told us the training they received was good; one staff member said the training could be very specific to people’s needs if something was identified. They explained they had attended autism awareness training and recently MAPA training. This is Management of Actual or Potential Aggression training. This training enables staff to understand how to de-escalate potentially challenging incidents. The staff member said this gave them the skills they needed to recognise and react positively before an incident became challenging.
We observed people were cared for and supported by staff members who were polite, compassionate and caring. They had a very relaxed and cheerful relationship with the support workers supporting them throughout the day. Staff spoke passionately about the care and support they provided whilst maintaining confidentiality.
People were protected from abuse because the provider had systems in place to ensure checks of new staffs characters and suitability to work with vulnerable adults were carried out. Staff had also received training in protecting vulnerable people from abuse.
The registered manager had a clear philosophy for the service provided, which they explained was put together with staff and people using the service. “Our aim is to provide flexible person centred support that will enable people to access a range of opportunities and live the life of their choice. Our focus is to work with individuals and support them to achieve their aspirations and a life in their communities.” This philosophy was supported by staff who sought to ensure people achieved the best they could.
The service had a complaints policy and procedure that was included in people’s support plans. People said they were aware of the procedure and knew who they could talk with. People and staff said they felt confident they could raise concerns with the registered manager and they would be dealt with appropriately.
There were systems in place to monitor the care provided and people’s views and opinions were sought on a daily basis. People were involved in staff recruitment. This meant the staff team could then be matched to the person on the basis of their personality and interests, as well as their knowledge and skills. Suggestions for change were listened to and actions taken to improve the service provided. All incidents and accidents were monitored, trends identified and learning shared with staff to put into practice.
The organisation’s quality monitoring system for the supported living unit was very residential care focused. For example, one comment was that the service had failed to check mattresses. Although the accommodation is multiple-occupancy, the flats are still the persons own home. We discussed this with the manager who explained the audit is one developed by the organisation for the area operational managers.
We made one recommendation. We recommended the provider reviews their quality assurance system to reflect a supported living service recognising that people are tenants living in their own flats.