You are here

Surrey Children’s Domiciliary Care Service Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The inspection took place on 17 November 2017 and was announced. Our last inspection was in July 2016 where we identified two breaches of regulations relating to risk assessments and governance. At this inspection, the provider had made improvements to meet the requirements of the regulations.

Surrey Children’s Domiciliary Care Service provides support to children with a range of disabilities who have been assessed by a social care team as requiring a personal care service within the family home. Staff supported children with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, autism and managing their behaviours.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to children who live at home with their families. At the time of our inspection, the service was supporting 35 children.

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.

Risks to children were routinely assessed with clear plans in place to keep them safe. There had been very few accidents or incidents, but staff responded appropriately where they occurred. Staff understood their roles in safeguarding children and we saw evidence of staff responding to concerns correctly. The service regularly played a role in multi-agency plans to keep children safe. Consent was sought from parents or children where they were old enough. Staff understood when the Mental Capacity Act (2005) could apply to the care that they delivered.

Staff worked alongside healthcare professionals and relevant agencies involved in children’s care. Where staff administered medicines, they had been trained to do so and clear records were kept in this area. Children, families and staff had access to support in the event of a child receiving end of life care. Relatives told us that staff were on time and they observed staff following good infection control practice on visits.

Children’s care was delivered in a way that met their needs, preferences and family routines. Staff supported children to attend schools and activities as well as to go on outings and to play. Children’s care was regularly reviewed and any changes were actioned by staff. Children and their families were regularly consulted in the quality of the care that they received. The provider had a clear complaints policy and relatives knew what to do if they wished to raise concerns.

Staff had the training that they needed to support them in their roles. Staff spoke highly of the management at the service and said that they felt supported and had opportunities to make suggestions. The provider had systems in place to enable effective communication between staff and ensured staff had access to secure, up to date records.

Staff routinely ensured children and their families were involved in their care. Choices were offered in line with routines and preferences and relatives told us that staff were respectful when entering their homes. The management had a clear vision for the service and an ongoing plan was in place to improve the service and deliver high quality care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to children were appropriately managed and staff responded appropriately to accidents or incidents. Staff raised escalated concerns to children’s safeguarding teams where they identified them.

Staff were deployed in a way that meant they arrived on time. The provider carried out checks on new staff to ensure that they were suitable for their roles.

Children’s medicines were managed and administered safely, by trained staff. Staff observed good practice to reduce the risk of the spread of infections.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were trained to carry out their roles and received supervision and appraisals to provide support and monitor performance.

Children’s needs and choices were clearly documented and children’s nutritional needs were met in line with their dietary needs and preferences.

Staff worked alongside healthcare professionals and appropriate agencies to meet the needs of children and their families.

Consent was obtained from the appropriate people or children where they were old enough. Staff understood when the Mental Capacity Act (2005) may apply to the care they delivered.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was caring.

We received positive feedback on the caring nature of staff and the provider had systems in place to monitor and ensure that staff were kind and compassionate.

Children were supported by regular staff that got to know them and their families well.

Children and their families were involved in the care that they received. Staff were respectful of privacy and dignity when providing support in children’s homes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was responsive.

Children received personalised care that matched their needs, preferences and family routines. Staff supported children to attend activities go on outings or play.

Regular reviews were conducted to identify changes in need and these were actioned by staff. Staff were trained in how to deliver end of life care.

A clear complaints policy was in place and relatives knew how to raise any concerns. Complaints were dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider carried out regular checks and audits. Records were kept up to date.

Staff felt supported by management and had regular meetings and systems in place to enable effective communication.

The provider had a clear vision for the service and an ongoing plan was in place to continue to improve and develop the service.

The provider worked with outside organisations and agencies to ensure that children received holistic care from trained staff.