We carried out a review of the data available to us about SeeAbility - Horley Support Service on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SeeAbility - Horley Support Service, you can give feedback on this service.
SeeAbility - Horley Support Service provides support to people in two supported living ‘houses in multi-occupation’, Bradbury House and Woodlands. The service also provides outreach domiciliary support in the community. At the time of our inspection, there were six people living in Bradbury House and six people living in Woodlands. Four people were receiving outreach support in the community. The service is registered to provide personal care to people living with visual impairments and other complex needs.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe and that staff were kind towards them. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
Staff were aware of risks associated with people’s care and took steps to reduce the risk of harm. Care plans including the management of risks were recorded and staff knew how to support people.
We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.
Staff told us their responsibilities were clear and they knew what was expected of them. The provider had completed regular quality assurance audits and appropriate actions had been taken.
People using the service, relatives and staff were complimentary about the management of the service. They told us they could approach the leadership team with feedback and suggesting ideas on how the service could improve.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 3 July 2019).
Why we inspected
We undertook this targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about the moving and handling practices at the service. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains Good.
CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
SeeAbility Horley Support Service provides domiciliary and specialist support to young people with visual impairment and complex needs. The service is provided at Bradbury House, which is a purpose-built, single-storey building. The service is registered to provide personal care. At the time of our inspection, there were six people living at SeeAbility and four people were receiving outreach support within their own homes.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People’s experience of using this service:
People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at SeeAbility. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and measures implemented to keep them safe. A positive approach to risk taking was followed to ensure people’s independence was maintained. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and had developed open and trusting relationships with people.
Staff had received training and support from healthcare professionals with regards to people’s individual health needs. This had enabled staff to provide people with individualised support in these areas.
People were offered choices in all areas of their lives, including what they ate and how they spent their time. Relatives told us that staff were caring and treated their family members with respect. People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and families. Staff had worked at the service for many years and positive relationships had developed between people. There was a warm and homely atmosphere and people were clearly comfortable living at SeeAbility. People’s dignity and privacy was respected, with personal care and conversations taking place behind closed doors.
People received a personalised service and were involved in developing their care plans. Staff knew people’s life histories, preferences and routines. Activities were based around people’s choices and people were supported to take part in the running of their home. There was a positive culture within the service where people, staff and relatives felt listened to. The registered manager felt supported by the provider and this flowed through the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did support this practice.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned comprehensive inspection to confirm the service remained Good.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.
SeeAbility Horley Support Service provides domiciliary and specialist support to young people with visual impairment and complex needs. The service is provided at Bradbury House, which is a building that provides supported living accommodation. Staff also provide an outreach service to people living in the community.
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.
Staff understood their role in safeguarding people. They had received training and demonstrated a good understanding of how they would protect people from abuse of potential harm. Staff routinely carried out risk assessments and created plans to minimise known hazards whilst encouraging people’s independence.
Policies and procedures were in place to keep people safe in the event of emergencies. People had individual plans to keep them safe in the event of an emergency and there were contingency plans in place.
The registered manager had a system in place to ensure appropriate numbers of staff were working to meet the needs of people. Checks were undertaken to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.
People were administered their prescribed medicines by staff who had received medicines training. Medicines records were up to date to ensure medicines were administered safely.
Staff training was tailored to the individual needs of the people that they supported. Staff told us that they had good access to training and people and relatives told us that staff were effective in their roles.
Staff provided care in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Records demonstrated that people’s rights were protected as staff acted in accordance with the MCA when being supported to make specific decisions.
Staff followed the guidance of healthcare professionals where appropriate and we saw evidence of staff working alongside healthcare professionals to achieve outcomes for people.
People were supported to eat in line with their preferences and dietary requirements. People were involved in preparing their meals and staff encouraged people’s independence in preparing meals. The kitchen area was suited to people living with a visual impairment and contained assistive technology to allow people to be independent.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. All caring interactions that we observed were positive and staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to respect people’s dignity.
Information in care plans reflected the needs and personalities of people. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and backgrounds as detailed in their care plans. People had choice about activities they wished to do and staff encouraged people to pursue new interests.
People were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the care they received through residents
meetings and keyworker sessions. Issues raised by people were responded to by management.
The registered manager had systems in place to monitor and ensure quality at the service.
Staff told us that they were well supported by management and had regular supervision.
People and relatives told us that they had a positive relationship with the registered manager.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 8 July 2014 when we found breaches of legal requirements. Following this inspection the provider wrote to us to say what they would do in order to meet legal requirements in ensuring people were treated by staff in a respectful and dignified way and that the service was well-led by the registered manager.
We undertook this unannounced focussed inspection on 4 March 2015 to check the provider had followed their plan and to confirm they were meeting the legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for SeeAbility – Horley Support Service on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
People were seen chatting to staff in a relaxed, friendly manner and staff were engaged in activities and interaction with people in a way that told us staff knew people well.
Staff were heard to speak to people in an appropriate manner during our visit and the registered manager told us (and staff confirmed) they had received recent dignity training.
The registered manager said they had organised several training events for staff to remind them of the importance of engaging with people in a meaningful way.
The provider had taken all necessary actions to ensure they had addressed the breaches in regulation and we found them to be compliant in all areas.
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This was an unannounced inspection.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
SeeAbility – Horley Support Service, is a supported living service which provides specialist support for up to six young people with a visual impairment and complex needs. The service enables people to maintain and develop their skills and to become independent where possible. This could range from doing their own cooking, making decisions on activities, or working in a part time job. People had tenancy’s for their room and shared a communal lounge and dining area, as well as a kitchen. There were six people being supported by the service on the day of this inspection.
People and their relatives told us they felt they were safe in the hands of the staff. Records showed staff had received safeguarding vulnerable adults training and staff were able to tell us what they would do if they had any concerns. Staff were also able to satisfy us they had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew when it would be appropriate to hold a ‘best interest’ meeting.
Support plans contained individual risk assessments in order to keep people safe and we observed during our visit there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to support people when they needed it. Staff told us they felt they, “Work well as a team” to support people and keep them safe.
People were encouraged to make their own decisions about their food. Everyone participated in being involved in cooking or preparing their meals. Staff promoted a healthy eating regime for everyone and fresh fruit and drinks were available. One person said, “I like helping with the cooking.”
People had access to other health care professionals as and when required. This was recorded in their support plans. We saw, where appropriate, guidance from health professionals was followed by staff.
Those who could, told us they felt staff treated them with respect and dignity and they could have privacy whenever they needed it. However, we felt through observation staff did not always take the time to communicate with people in a meaningful way. We observed occasions when we felt staff did not understand or promote respectful behaviour or social interaction.
We spoke with a professional from a registered charity. They told us there was a good commitment from staff to ensure that when individuals received support from them (the charity), staff continued this support to ensure consistent and co-ordinated care.
People made decisions about their own care and treatment. For example, whether or not they wished assistance with personal care, or undertaking an activity. This was recorded in the records and people confirmed this. One person said, “I make decisions about what I want to do.” Relatives told us they were involved in reviewing the care and support provided to their family member.
Each person had a keyworker, and co-keyworker. This meant people were supported by staff who had the appropriate knowledge about each individual. One relative told us, “The staff know (my relative) very well.” Staff were encouraged to progress professionally and attend training appropriate for their role.
Everyone had an individual activity plan. This ensured they also had access to the community, friends and relatives. Two people worked at a local charity shop during the week. One of them told us, “I like working at (the shop) best.” There were also several volunteers involved with the service and activities were individualised to suit people’s needs and preferences.
People were given information on how to make a complaint. The registered manager told us there had been no complaints in the last 12 months. There was an accident and incident log which recorded details of any incidents, together with the outcome and action taken.
Those who could, told us they were encouraged to feedback their views of the support they received. This was done either through the formal annual survey or by speaking to the registered manager. They said the registered manager was very approachable and supportive and would act on any issues raised with them. Regular audits were carried out, which included a quarterly regional manager visit. This showed us the provider checked they provided support in an appropriate and safe way and where necessary, improvements were made.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
Person centred care plans had been developed which were detailed and provided clear guidance for staff to follow which enabled them to deliver people's care. A person we spoke with said that they liked living in the service. We spoke with three people's relatives. They told us that they were happy with the care and support provided. They said that they were involved and kept update about their relatives care. Comments included, "I am very happy with the care", "the staff are good" and "Excellent Care".
Procedures were in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse and staff received up to date training.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the care and support that people received. The views of people and their representatives were gathered.
Staff we spoke to said that enjoyed working in the service and they felt supported by the manager.
Systems were in place to ensure that people received their medicines in a safe way.
We spoke with three people, who used the service. They all told us that they were very happy with the care and support that they received. They all said that the staff were kind. Two people said that the staff were always available to support them with their personal care.
We spoke with a relative of a person who used the service. They said that the staff had the right skills they were polite and they were satisfied with the care provided.