Archived: The Abbeyfield Mid Sussex Domiciliary Care Agency

The Abbeyfield Mid Sussex Domiciliary Care Agency provides support for older people who need assistance with their personal care. They support people who live on site in a sheltered housing complex. The housing complex adjoined a care home owned by the same provider. At the time of the inspection one person was receiving the regulated activity.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were provided with a care package that was centred on their needs, wishes and preferences. Care provided was responsive to people's changing needs and wishes. Care plans described the people's needs and preferences and staff were aware of the people's personal history and interests and relationships that mattered to them. People and their relatives were consulted about decisions and involved in planning their care.

People were involved in their care and support and were encouraged to be active in giving feedback about how the service was run. The service demonstrated good management and leadership and staff felt supported to raise any concerns they had.

We saw staff treating people with dignity, respecting their privacy and helping people to feel at ease with friendly banter and chatter.

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's medicines were managed safely by appropriately trained staff.

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 checked that suitable staff were engaged to work in the care profession. There were sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs. Staff were prompt in arriving at people's homes at the arranged time.

People's health needs were monitored well and staff were responsive in seeking treatment. A district nurse told us “Staff are very friendly, they are exceptional here, they take on any advice.”

Staff supported people to have ready access to food and drink.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff enabled people to be as independent as possible. People were encouraged and welcomed to participate in the activities, events and use the amenities in the provider's care home adjoining the sheltered living block.

Staff were skilled and knowledgeable. They had received training that equipped them to fulfil their role and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of people who may use the service in the future.

This service met the characteristics of Good. More information is in the ‘Detailed Findings’ below.

Rating at the last inspection: Good. The last inspection report was published on 30 June 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission (CQC) scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.

Follow up: We will review the service in line with our methodology for 'Good' services.

The inspection took place on 30 June 2016 and we gave the provider 24 hours’ notice in order to make sure the people we needed to speak with were available. The last inspection of this service was completed on 17 January 2014 and no concerns were identified.

The service had a registered manager. 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 were provided with a bespoke service that was centred on their needs, wishes and preferences. Care provided was responsive to people’s changing needs and wishes and staff respected people’s privacy and treated them with dignity. One person told us “They treat me well. They are very polite and always knock on the door before they come in. They do treat me with respect and dignity”.

Care plans described the people’s needs and preferences and staff were aware of the people’s personal history and the people that mattered to them. People and their relatives were consulted about decisions and involved in planning their care. One person told us “They listen to me and speak with (relative’s name). I asked them to do that, I’m happy they do and I’m happy with the care”.

People living on site had the option to participate in the activities provided by one of the provider’s care homes which is next door. People living in the wider community also had the option to participate in some of the activities provided at the care home such as community events and celebrations.

There were systems in place to ensure people received safe care and there were sufficient staff employed to support them. Recruitment practices ensured staff were safe to work with people at risk. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Staff were skilled and knowledgeable. They had received training that equipped them to fulfil their role and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of people who may use the service in the future, such as caring for people living with dementia or epilepsy. One person told us they felt staff were competent and that they were “Very happy with the all the girls”. Staff were supported in their role provided with opportunities to develop. One member of staff told us “The induction was very good; they provide lots of lots of good quality training”.

The registered manager and staff had received training and worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. Whilst no one receiving a service needed any support with medicines, there were systems and procedures in place for the safe management and administration of medicines.

The provider undertook quality assurance reviews to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.

We visited two people in their homes who used the service; both said they were very happy with the service being provided. One person said "my care assistant is just lovely; they help me in any way I ask'.

The people we spoke with said that staff acted with their consent. We saw that care records were completed with the full involvement of the person and that assessments and care plans were signed by the person.

People told us the service met their care needs. One person told us "my care assistant is very supportive of my wish to remain in my own home and does all they can to help me do so'.

People using the service told us they felt safe with staff. People were happy with the skill and experience of staff. One relative was recorded as saying 'our relative looks so much better now that they are receiving assistance'.

The manager regularly sought the views of people to ensure they were satisfied with the service. People told us if they were unhappy about anything they could tell the staff and something would be done.

People told us they were involved in the planning of their care package and staff supported them at their preferred times. They said that the service met their needs and allowed them to remain independent in their supported living bungalows.

People told us they felt safe and were appropriately supported by staff. We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse or neglect and staff understood how to identify and address these concerns.

We found that staff had appropriate training and support to carry out their roles safely and to a good standard.

We found that records were maintained and stored appropriately. Staff were able to access records when necessary. People's confidential information was kept secure.