We carried out a review of the data available to us about ECL Regaining Independence Service 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 ECL Regaining Independence Service, you can give feedback on this service.
ECL Regaining Independence Service is regulated to provide personal care to people in their own homes.
At the time of our inspection, approximately 94 people were using the service. People were referred to the service following hospital discharge or through social services. They follow a time limited, 're-enablement' programme of support which helped them to attain planned goals and regain their independence they had lost as the result of a specific event, such as an accident or through illness.
People receiving the service had a range of needs and told us they received personalised care that supported them to regain the independence.
The service was last inspected in March 2016. At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People and their relatives felt safe using the service and that staff were trustworthy. People received safe care and treatment. Risks to people’s health and safety were appropriately assessed and mitigated. Guidance was provided to staff on how to manage people's risks. People were supported to attain their goals and have maximum choice and control of their lives.
People received personalised care that supported them to regain the independence they had lost as the result of a specific event, such as an accident or through illness. People helped to set goals they aimed to achieve and were supported by staff in this. Complaints were managed and responded to appropriately.
Staff had been trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place. Safe recruitment practices were in place so that suitable staff were engaged to work in the care profession. Staff were not always prompt in arriving at people's homes at the stipulated time, but it was recognised that some people needed additional support which varied from day to day and could delay the timings of visits. Accidents and incidents were reported and managed appropriately.
People's medicines were managed safely by trained staff. Many people using the service told us they managed their own medicines independently. For the people that had support to take their medicines, these were well managed by staff at the service. Staff supported people to have ready access to food and drink.
Depending on their needs, people using the service received care for up to nine weeks. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and how best to support them to achieve the desired outcomes. The provider’s remit was to support people to regain their levels of independence as much as was possible and they were encouraged in this process by staff when they visited people in their own homes. A relative explained how one staff member was on hand when their family member took a shower, but only helped when necessary. The relative said, “Staff are fantastic. They can’t do enough.”
People told us that staff treated them with dignity, respected their privacy and made them feel at ease. We saw staff treating and discussing people with dignity and respect and being considerate.
People were involved in their care and support and were encouraged to be active in giving feedback about how the service was run. People were asked for their views about the service through surveys sent by the provider. A large majority stated they were happy with the service and were likely to recommend it to friends or family. The service demonstrated good management and leadership and staff felt supported to raise any concerns they had.
People's health needs were monitored well and staff were responsive in seeking treatment.
The service was well led by the registered manager who had support from the provider in ensuring that quality assurance systems were effective. The provider invested in staff training and career development.
ECL Regaining Independence Service provides structured support for people living in their own homes across West Sussex. At the time of our inspection, approximately 124 people were using the service. People are referred to the service following hospital discharge or through social services. They follow a time limited, ‘re-enablement’ programme of support which helps them to attain planned goals and regain their independence.
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 and their relatives felt safe using the service and staff were trustworthy. People’s risks were identified and assessed appropriately and guidance was provided to staff on how to manage people’s risks. Staff had been trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place. Safe recruitment practices were in place so that suitable staff were engaged to work in the care profession. Staff were not always prompt in arriving at people’s homes at the stipulated time, but it was recognised that some people needed additional support which varied from day to day. Accidents and incidents were reported and managed appropriately. People’s medicines were managed safely by trained staff.
Staff were trained in a range of areas to support people effectively and new staff followed the Care Certificate, a universally recognised qualification. The majority of staff were up to date in their training, but the registered manager had identified this was an area for improvement and had plans in place to address this. Weekly staff meetings enabled staff and other professionals to discuss people’s care needs and progress. Staff had regular supervision meetings and observations were undertaken of staff as they supported people at home. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but some staff did not have a thorough understanding of the requirements of this legislation. This did not impact on people’s care as staff gained people’s consent before delivering care and providing support. Care plans recorded that people gave consent to their care and treatment. People were supported by staff to have access to a range of healthcare professionals.
People were supported by kind, caring and friendly staff who knew them well. People spoke highly of the staff and the care they received. There was a high turnover of people who used the service because people received planned support in a structured, time limited programme of care lasting, on average, six weeks. People were involved in their care as much as they wanted to be and were treated with dignity and respect.
People received personalised care that supported them to regain the independence they had lost as the result of a specific event, such as an accident or through illness. People helped to set goals they aimed to achieve and were supported by staff in this. Complaints were managed and responded to appropriately in line with the provider’s policy.
People were asked for their views about the service through surveys sent by the provider. A large majority stated they were happy with the service and were likely to recommend it to friends or family. The service demonstrated good management and leadership and staff felt supported to raise any concerns they had. There was a range of audits in place to measure the quality of the service overall and the care delivered.
During our inspection we spoke with five people who received care from this agency. We also spoke with four staff members, known as R.I.A's (Regaining Independence Assistants), two support leads, the service manager and two occupational therapists.
People told us that they were very happy with the service. One person said, 'The carers were really excellent.' Another person who had used the service said 'They were very caring, very good. They got me over the worst and helped me get back on my feet again, a godsend'. Another person said the service was 'absolutely marvellous, they treat me really well'
Records we looked at showed the service had systems in place to monitor the care provided to people. We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. The agency had an effective system in place to assess and monitor the quality of service.
People who use the service confirmed that regular checks were carried out by the service to make sure that they received the quality of care they expected. They were happy with the service and confirmed they felt consulted.
Records showed that staff who were appointed were suitably checked before working with vulnerable people. The provider had a system in place to ensure the quality of service provision.