Background to this inspection
Updated
6 February 2019
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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 7 January 2019 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.
We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make
During the inspection we spoke with three people who used the service and three staff members including the manager. We carried out general observations throughout the day and referred to a number of records. These included four care plans, records around medicine management, two staff recruitment files, policies around the running of the service and how the organisation audits the quality of the service.
Following the inspection, we spoke to one relative of a person who uses the service by telephone.
Updated
6 February 2019
Leatherhead Support Service is a domiciliary care agency. This service provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. People using the service lived in ordinary flats and bedsits. Leatherhead Support Service provides a service to adults with a visual impairment and other medical conditions.
The inspection took place on 7 January 2019 and was unannounced.
Not everyone using Leatherhead Support Service receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, 13 people were receiving a regulated activity.
People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff were aware of safeguarding practices. Risks to people were identified and managed appropriately, and accidents and incidents were recorded so lessons could be learnt and the quality of the service improved. Staff carried out safe infection control practices and medicines were stored and administered in line with best practice guidelines. There were a sufficient number of staff to meet people’s needs and staff had been recruited safely.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to make healthy informed choices around meals and to be as independent as possible.
People were able to express their views and supported to make decisions around their care. The service had been proactive in approaching people about their end of life wishes which had been recorded.
Care plans were person centred and recorded people’s aims which staff supported them to achieve. People received information in their preferred formats. We did not view any pre-assessments as there had been no new people joining the service since the last inspection.
Staff were up to date with mandatory training and received regular supervision. Communication between staff was effective. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were treated in a kind, caring and respectful way by staff.
People had access to healthcare professionals and specialist teams who were part of a person’s review process. Feedback was gained from people, relatives and staff on a regular basis and they in turn felt the manager was approachable. The service had made alterations to the deployment of staff to ensure that they could meet the changing needs of the people who used it.
The service had received compliments from relatives. People and relatives knew how to raise a complaint if needed. Robust quality audits carried out by people and staff identified any issues in the service and these were resolved in a timely manner. There was close partnership working with stakeholders and other organisations. The manager knew of their responsibility to make the Commission aware of all notifiable incidents.