You are here

Archived: Home Support Reablement Service Good

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

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 November 2015

The announced inspection took place on 29 September 2015. The service had not yet been inspected under this registration as it was previously registered at a different location.

Home Support Reablement Service is a short term reablement service provided by Bolton Council. Personal care is provided in people's homes to support them to return to independent living. The team is managed from a Bolton Council property in King Street Farnworth. There is limited on-site parking with restricted parking nearby. The local transport service is easily accessed from the service. On the day of the inspection there were 102 people currently using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 who used the service told us they felt safe and secure. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to help keep people safe.

The service had a robust recruitment procedure to help ensure suitable staff were employed. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service and cover was arranged for any sickness or leave.

Staff had undertaken relevant safeguarding adults training, demonstrated a knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of the reporting procedures. There was a lead manager for safeguarding to help keep staff knowledge current and up to date.

Infection control procedures were robust and staff had received training. There was a lead manager for infection control who ensured information was disseminated as changes occurred.

Staff had received training in medication administration and there were systems in place to ensure medicines were given safely.

We saw the service’s system from initial referral to termination of the service, which was efficient. People’s support plans were reviewed regularly to ensure people were given the correct level of assistance throughout their use of the service.

The service had a robust induction programme which included training, observation of practice and shadowing. Training was of a high standard and was on-going for staff.

Supervisions and appraisals were undertaken regularly to ensure staff’s training and development needs were identified and addressed.

The service worked within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). Consent was obtained appropriately.

People who used the service told us they were treated with kindness and consideration. They felt their dignity and privacy were respected at all times.

The service had recently won a Customer Care award, demonstrating their commitment to providing a high standard of care.

Information given to people was clear and comprehensive and people told us explanations about the service were clear. People’s independence was promoted and their strengths and abilities acknowledged and built on.

People told us they were encouraged to make their own choices by staff who delivered their support.

The service was tailored to each person’s individual needs and was flexible. Support was changed as people’s needs changed to ensure the correct level of support was offered at all times.

People were given the opportunity to comment on the service via a number of methods, including a comments form, regular support reviews and questionnaires as the service came to an end.

Complaints procedures were in evidence and concerns were dealt with promptly. There was evidence of compliments received by the service from satisfied customers.

There was a registered manager at the service. The robust management structure ensured that all staff had access to regular supervision and support. Staff meetings were held regularly to encourage staff to raise issues and concerns and make suggestions.

The service was accountable to a Quality Governance Board which monitored their progress and encouraged development and promoted shared learning.

Staff were encouraged to become involved with regular Quality Circles to help drive continual improvement to service delivery.

Audits and checks were undertaken regularly and the results analysed and issues addressed. This helped the service respond to changing needs and continually improve.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 November 2015

The service was safe.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and secure. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to help keep people safe.

The service had a robust recruitment procedure. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service and cover was arranged for any sickness or leave.

Staff demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of the reporting procedures. Systems were in place to ensure medicines were given safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 November 2015

The service was effective.

The system from initial referral to termination of the service was efficient. Support plans were reviewed regularly to ensure people were given the correct level of assistance.

The service had a robust induction programme, including training, observation of practice and shadowing. Training was on-going for staff.

Supervisions and appraisals were undertaken regularly.

 

The service worked within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). Consent was obtained appropriately.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 November 2015

The service was caring.

People who used the service told us they were treated with kindness and consideration. They felt their dignity and privacy were respected at all times.

The service had recently won a Customer Care award, demonstrating their commitment to providing a high standard of care.

Information given to people was clear and comprehensive. People’s independence was promoted and strengths and abilities acknowledged and built on.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 November 2015

The service was responsive.

People told us they were given choices by staff who delivered their support.

The service was tailored to each person’s individual needs and was flexible. Support was changed as people’s needs changed to ensure the correct level of support was offered at all times.

People were given the opportunity to comment on the service via a number of methods, including a comments form, regular support reviews and questionnaires as the service came to an end.

 

Complaints procedures were in evidence and concerns were dealt with promptly. There was evidence of compliments received by the service from satisfied customers.  

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 November 2015

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager at the service. The robust management structure ensured that all staff had access to regular supervision and support.

The service was accountable to a Quality Governance Board which monitored their progress and encouraged development and promoted shared learning. 

Staff were encouraged to become involved with Quality Circles to help drive continual improvement to service delivery.

Audits and checks were undertaken regularly and the results analysed and issues addressed. This helped the service respond to changing needs and continually improve.