We carried out a review of the data available to us about Support at Home, Beehive Care 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 Support at Home, Beehive Care, you can give feedback on this service.
Abbeyfield Ferring Society is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care for people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection, 20 people were receiving personal care support from the service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt safe with staff who supported them. Risks to people had been identified and assessed and were managed safely by staff. People said staff arrived on time and they were informed in advance of which carers would be supporting them. Staff supported people to take their medicines or reminded them when they were due. People were protected from the risk of infection. Staff wore disposable aprons and gloves when providing people with personal care.
People’s needs were assessed to see whether their needs could be met, and in relation to staff availability, before they used the service. Staff completed a range of training to undertake their roles and responsibilities and had regular supervision meetings with their line managers. Where people required support in the preparation of meals, staff had been trained to do this safely. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services and staff supported people to attend appointments when needed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. People and their relatives were encouraged to make decisions about their care. People’s diverse needs were catered for and they were treated with dignity and respect.
Care was personalised to meet people’s needs. Care plans provided detailed information and guidance for staff on people’s care and support needs, likes and dislikes, and the way they wanted to receive personal care. Information could be provided to people in an accessible format. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s policy.
People and their relatives spoke highly of the service. One person told us, “They are nice, friendly girls [staff]. They always come in with a smile”. Their feedback was sought through surveys they received from the provider. Staff enjoyed working for Abbeyfield Ferring Society and felt supported by management. A system of quality audits were used to monitor and measure the service and any areas for improvement were actioned. Links had been developed with other organisations to develop community involvement.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection, this service was rated as Good (published in September 2016).
Why we inspected:
This inspection took place in line with CQC scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.
Follow up:
We will review the service in line with our methodology for ‘Good’ services.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Abbeyfield Ferring Society is domiciliary care service that provides support to people in Ferring and the immediate local area. At the time of our visit the service was supporting 20 people with personal care. The registered manager told us that they offered a community service and that whilst they hoped to grow, they would remain focused on the local area.
The service had a registered manager. 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 spoke positively about the service and told us that they enjoyed the company of the staff who supported them. When we visited people in their homes, we observed that they enjoyed warm and friendly relationships with staff. People appreciated the continuity in the staff who visited them and staff understood how people wished to be supported. Staff supported people to be as independent as they were able and were mindful of their privacy. People told us that staff treated them respectfully.
People received a safe service. Staff understood local safeguarding procedures. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and reviewed. People received their medicines safely and at the right time.
There were enough staff employed to cover the calls currently booked with the service but there was limited scope for people to increase their care hours. The registered manager explained that they were in the process of introducing new systems to manage the growth of the service. This included an electronic records system to plan staff rotas and manage invoicing. At the time of our inspection the service was taking time to stabilise and was not accepting any new clients or taking on new staff.
Staff understood how consent should be considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff supported people to prepare meals and to eat and drink if required. Where people could benefit from additional support, referrals were made to other healthcare professionals such as the GP, district nurses or falls prevention team.
People had confidence in the staff who supported them. Staff received training to enable them to deliver effective care. They were supported in their roles by a system of supervision and appraisal. A training manager had been recruited to the service. The staff training offer was being developed and enhanced to offer staff further opportunities for professional development.
People were involved in planning their care and determining how they wished to receive support. People’s care was reviewed and any changes communicated quickly and effectively to staff.
People felt able to contact the registered manager if they had concerns and said that they received a quick response. People knew how to make a complaint and were assured of a full and prompt response.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and used feedback from people and staff to identify improvements and act on them. Senior staff carried out spot checks on care workers to monitor the delivery of care. Although the registered manager had responded appropriately to any incidents that had occurred, we discussed how the consistency of incident reporting could be improved to allow for effective audit. The registered manager took prompt action following our visit to address this.