We carried out a review of the data available to us about SeeAbility - Surrey Views 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 - Surrey Views, you can give feedback on this service.
The inspection took place on 6 November 2018 and was unannounced.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
A registered manager was not currently in post but one was being trained and registered at the time of the inspection. 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.
Why the service is rated Good.
Policies, procedures and staff training were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff had identified risks to people and these were managed safely. People were protected from the risk of infection. Recruitment processes were followed to ensure suitable staff worked at the service. Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people’s safety. Arrangements were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely and securely.
Risks to people’s safety were identified and action taken to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and measures implemented to reduce the risk of them happening again. There were business contingency plans in place in the event of an emergency.
The service was responsive and tailored its care to people’s lifestyle choices. Care plans were person centred and people were seen and responded to as individuals. Activity programmes were creative and designed to meet people's individual preferences and choices.
People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were respected. Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care and how people communicated their decisions. Applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe.
People were cared for by staff who had received comprehensive training, support and supervision in their role. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to eat and drink sufficiently for their needs. Staff supported people to see a range of healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health and wellbeing. The home provided bright and spacious accommodation with access to large grounds and outside space. People had been encouraged to choose the décor and were able to personalise their bedrooms.
Staff treated people with kindness and went the extra mile to provide consistency and care for people when they needed to stay at hospital. Staff supported people to make choices about their lives. Staff treated people with respect and upheld their dignity when delivering their care.
People had a comprehensive assessment of their support needs and guidelines were produced for staff about how to meet people’s individual needs and preferences. Support plans were reviewed with people and their families and relevant changes made where needed. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. People received a highly personalised service that was responsive to their changing needs. Staff encouraged people to connect with their local community on a daily basis. People had excellent access to educational and leisure opportunities that were bespoke to their preferences and interests.
Processes were in place to enable people to make complaints. The provider had effective governance processes in place. People, their families, staff and professionals were encouraged to be actively involved in the development and continuous improvement of the home. People benefitted from living in a well organised, forward thinking service where their needs were always at the centre. The culture of the service was open and people felt confident to express their views and opinions. Management provided clear leadership and direction to staff and were committed and passionate about providing high quality services to people.
The provider had robust quality assurance systems which operated across all levels of the service. Staff had worked effectively in partnership with other agencies such as social workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, GP's, and pharmacies to promote positive outcomes for people.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
People had varied communication needs and abilities. Some people were able to express themselves verbally; others used body language or Makaton (type of sign language) to communicate their needs.
The service was run by a registered manager, who was present on the day of the inspection visit. ‘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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to evidence that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.
There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. Staff were seen to support people to keep them safe. There were robust recruitment practises in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people.
Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks like personal care and the environment and were updated frequently.
People’s medicines were administered stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.
People’s human rights were protected as the registered manager ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was followed. Where people were assessed to lack capacity to make some decisions, mental capacity assessment and best interest meetings were evidenced. Staff were heard to ask people for their permission before they provided care.
Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.
People had sufficient to eat and drink. They had healthy home cooked meals. People were seen to be offered choice on the day of what they would like to eat and drink. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.
Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place and staff competency was regularly assessed. Staff received regular supervision.
Positive and caring relationships had been established. Staff interacted with people in a kind and considerate manner.
People, their relatives and other professionals were involved in planning peoples care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff throughout the day. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. There were no restrictions on when friends and family could visit. People received a personalised service. Staff knew people’s preferences and wishes and they were adhered to.
The service listened to people, staff and relative’s views. The management welcomed and actively sought feedback from people and acted upon this if necessary. The management promoted an open and person centred culture. The registered manager was present in the home on a very regular basis.
Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager. Relatives told us they felt that the management was approachable and responsive.
There were robust procedures in place to monitor, evaluate and improve the quality of care provided. Staff were motivated and aware of their responsibilities. The registered manager understood the requirements of CQC and sent appropriate notifications.
There were eight people living at the home at the time of our inspection. During our visit we observed staff talking to people with respect and compassion and assisting them in making choices. We found that people attended a local day centre regularly and undertook other activities.
We read in care records that every person had a personalised care and support plan that was suitable to their needs and reviewed regularly and that people were involved with these. We saw that there were regular meetings where people's views were listened to and valued. Through observation we saw people being offered choice as to what they wanted to do and how their room's were decorated. We saw that regular audits of the service were completed by the provider ensuring that people who used the service benefited from a service that constantly monitored its quality of care provided.
Staff told us that they felt they had adequate training and were well supported in order to carry out their role and to meet the needs of the people in the home. We found that safeguarding training had been received by all staff and that their responsibility was well understood.
None of the people we spoke with, or their relatives, raised any concerns with us about their treatment at the home. People told us that they felt safe at the home and well cared for. They said that staff were polite and treated them with respect.
People told us that staff helped them to make medical appointments if they needed them and that they had support to use local shops, pubs, cafes and restaurants. They said they had opportunities to give their views about the home and about the care and support they received.
A relative of a person using the service said of their family member, 'She is so happy there and we can honestly say the care she is receiving is second to none We have nothing but praise for the way she is being looked after and this is especially born out as she is so happy when we visit.'