You are here

Archived: Joint Community Rehabilitation Service

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

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 December 2013
Date of Publication: 29 January 2014
Inspection Report published 29 January 2014 PDF | 89.22 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 18 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. These aims were upheld by the services stated aims of, ‘Proactively engaging clients with the process and enabling greater clarity and communication to clients.’ We saw that people's views were included in their support plans.

We noted people were invited to join a service users steering group. We were told, “It was difficult to hold on to people because of the short term nature of engagement, a maximum of six weeks.” We saw that the forum was attended by 11 people and that a further 30 people took part through phone interviews. We saw that people within the group fed back that they wanted less duplication of signing paperwork. We saw that the number of pages that required a client’s signature were reduced.

We found the provider had a separate review structure that gave people the opportunity to feedback in regard to the service they received. This was achieved in person on a face to face basis via completion of the manager’s client quality monitoring visit form. We saw that these forms were regularly completed. We saw completed copies of the Joint Community Rehabilitation Service evaluation questionnaire. These were completed so that the service could get a picture of what people who used the service thought of their experience, how rehabilitation had helped them and gave opportunity for suggestions for how it could be improved in the future.

We saw that there was a complaints procedure in place. We noted that when complaints were received they were appropriately documented and the resolution to them noted. One person who used the service that we consulted told us, "I've never had a complaint but I have every confidence in the managers. I know they would sort out any problems quickly."

We tracked concerns and complaints as they were recorded and we saw they were promptly followed up. A senior support worker attended the person's home to speak with the person affected. This showed that there were systems in place to identify and learn from complaints received. The manager told us, "People know they can speak to me directly". People indicated to us that they knew the name of the manager or senior worker and voiced their confidence in them and other staff at the service.

We saw that regular monitoring visits were carried out to ensure the quality of support provided for people who used the service. We saw that there were detailed support plans and risk assessments in place that ensured the safe delivery of care. We saw that the registered manager worked closely with senior support staff to audit the quality of care provision. The provider conducted its own audits. This demonstrated that the manager of the service ensured direct care was delivered appropriately.

Accidents and incidents were recorded in detail and relevant actions were completed. We saw that accidents had been appropriately recorded and a copy of the record was kept on the individuals file. The provider may find it useful to note that we looked at the care plan for a client that included a completed body map form. This form detailed bruising which had been seen on the client’s body. We checked and saw that the observations were recorded in the diary notes section of the clients file. However, we found no reference to it in the ‘Important Information’, section of the same file. We spoke with the manager who agreed that discovering bruising was important. They told us “We don’t want to be too prescriptive as to what’s recorded as we could find the important information section becoming overloaded.” This meant we saw no reliable rationale for what could be considered important information.

We found well documented cooperation and consultation with other services and professionals. This meant that, where necessary, other relevant professionals had been involved in contributing to the safe delivery of care and suppo