Surrey SCP

Updated 28 February 2020

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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Surrey SCP is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

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 a short notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since our last inspection, including records of events the provider was required to tell us about. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We met and spoke with two people that used the service at the providers office to seek their views about the service. We spoke with six members of staff including the registered manager, an administrative officer, and four care workers. We reviewed a range of records. This included eight people's care and medicines records. We looked at four staff files in relation to recruitment and supervision. We also reviewed records used in the management of the service including policies and procedures, complaints, surveys, accident and incident records and minutes of meetings.

After the inspection

We spoke with two people and eight relatives on the telephone to gather their views about the service. We contacted health and social care professionals for their views about the service and we received feedback from three health and social care professional.

Updated 28 February 2020

About the service

Surrey SCP is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection 76 people were using the service.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service

People and their relatives were complimentary about the service and said the care and support met they or their loved one’s needs. People were supported by staff that were kind, caring, respectful and maintained their privacy and dignity. People’s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure the service was suitable and care and support planned to meet their needs. Staff supported people’s diverse needs in a caring way and without discrimination. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support needs and where possible, people were encouraged to do things they could for themselves to promote their independence.

People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. Risks to people had been identified, assessed and there were appropriate measures in place to manage risks safely. Where accidents and incidents had occurred, these were reported, recorded and any lessons learnt were used to improve the quality of the service. Staff knew their responsibility to protect people from the risk of abuse. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed by healthcare professionals. People were protected from the risk of infection because staff followed appropriate infection control procedures to prevent the spread of diseases.

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. Staff were supported with induction, training and supervision to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to perform their roles. People were supported to eat and drink for their health and wellbeing and to access to healthcare service.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and met. People and their relatives said they knew how to make a complaints and the service had effective ways of handling complaints. People had been consulted about how they would like to be supported at the end of their lives to ensure their wishes were met and respected.

The service worked in partnership with key organisations to achieve best outcomes for people. The service was charitable and proactive in supporting people within their local community including those in hospital and care homes. The service enabled people to be active members of their local community and supported people to celebrate important events or occasions in their lives.

The service had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service and to continuously learn to drive improvements. People, their relatives and staff views were sought to improve on the quality of the service. The provider had incentives in place to retain and reward staff performance and to promote consistent and quality care.

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 26 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.