• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: HaRT Havering Reablement Service

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

8 Holgate Court, Western Road, Romford, Essex, RM1 3JS (01708) 629860

Provided and run by:
Family Mosaic Housing

All Inspections

8 December 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 8 December 2016. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the service provides a domiciliary care service in people’s own homes and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to assist with the inspection. We last inspected the service in September 2013 and found that the service was meeting the required standards.

The Havering Reablement Service is provided by Family Mosaic Housing and delivers personal care and support to people in their own homes, within the London Borough of Havering. At the time of our inspection, approximately 79 people were using the service. The service was employing 70 reablement support workers who provided support to people living in the community.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered care homes, 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.

A reablement service aims to provide short term support to people in order for them to stay independent in their own home by regaining daily living skills and improving their quality of life, often following a stay in hospital.

We found that systems were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of the different types of abuse and how to respond to any concerns.

People received reablement care at home from staff who understood their needs. Not all risks to people were effectively managed because risk assessments were incomplete for staff to minimise identified risks. This meant people were not being effectively protected.

When required, staff administered people’s medicines and had received the appropriate training to do this.

The provider had sufficient numbers of staff available to provide support to people, although initial assessments had not taken place recently within the stipulated 48 hours of referral, due to staff shortages. Staff had been recruited following appropriate checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service.

The service did not always monitor staff to check that they had arrived to carry out personal care to people in the community. We have made a recommendation about logging calls and ensuring staff are able to manage their rotas..

Staff received training in a number of areas that were important for them to be able to carry out their roles. They told us that they were provided opportunities to develop. However, some staff did not always feel able to raise any concerns and were not always confident that these would be addressed satisfactorily by the management team.

People were treated with privacy and dignity. They were listened to by staff and were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs. They were registered with health care professionals and staff contacted them in emergencies. People told us they received support from staff who encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.

We found that care plans were task led and not person centred. They did not contain details of people’s preferences and choices. This meant people were not receiving appropriate personalised care.

A complaints procedure was in place. People and their relatives were able to make complaints, express their views and give feedback about their care and support. They told us they could raise any issues and that action would be taken by the management team.

The provider undertook audits and checks to look at where improvements could be made. We noted that some areas of the service required further progress. Two week reviews were not always carried out or recorded. We also found that exit interviews did not always take place with people after they had ceased using the service, as required by the provider’s procedures.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

4 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People said the provider had been effective in supporting them to achieve their reablement goals when they came home from hospital. They told us the service had assisted them to become more independent. A person said "they have really helped me, I am finishing with them soon because they have got me back to normal." The provider had made appropriate checks to ensure staff had the right skills and were trustworthy. People told us they were treated with respect by staff who were well suited to their job and involved them in making decisions about their support.

People's needs and wishes were taken into account by the service when planning their support. Their support plans detailed how staff provided assistance and helped them to become more independent with their care. A person said "I feel safe because I know they are there but I am doing things for myself now." The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the effectiveness of the service. They gathered people's views and observed how staff supported people. When required, lessons were learnt and action was taken to improve the service.