You are here

1 Southdowns View Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 May 2019

About the service:

Kestrel Homecare, 1 Southdown's View is a domiciliary care service. The service is a family run business where the provider is also the registered manager.

It provides personal care to adults living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 37 people, only 27 were receiving personal care. The service provides care and support for people in Heathfield and the surrounding area. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

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:

•The registered manager and office manager completed regular audits and checks on the quality of the service and look at ways to improve. However, shortfalls found at the inspection had not been identified and addressed.

•The registered manager had not ensured that all records were kept up to date. Staff supervisions were taking place, but the registered manager was not always recording these. Risks to people identified but these were not always recorded accurately in peoples care plans. These shortfalls had not directly impacted on the car and support people were receiving.

• At the last two inspections in 2015 and 2016 we recommended that the registered manager join a professional network for registered managers to ensure best practice and continuous drive to improve the service and keep up to date with best practise. This recommendation had not been addressed.

•People told us they felt safe and supported by staff in the way they preferred. Staff demonstrated good knowledge and received training on how to protect people from abuse. Staff could identify the forms of abuse and what they would do if the suspected or witnessed the different types.

•People spoke with staff about any potential risks to their health and welfare. These were assessed, monitored. Staff knew how to keep people safe from risks, however the potential risks were not fully recorded to make sure staff had clear written guidance on what to do to keep risks to a minimum and what action to take if the risk occurred. There were environmental risk assessments in place for staff.

•The registered manager made sure there was enough suitably trained staff to provide support to people. People said they were confident in the staff’s skills and abilities to look after them and keep them safe. Staff felt supported and valued. The registered manager checked that staff were undertaking their roles safely and effectively.

•Staff were recruited safely. Gaps in employment had been explored by the registered manager but a record of this was not available. People told us that they received their calls from regular staff who were on time and they had no missed calls. People received support from the registered manager and office manager when they needed it. They said there was always someone at the end of the phone.

•People's needs were assessed before they started using the service to make sure staff could deliver the care that they needed. People had agreed to the care and support they received.

•People had been able to plan their visits with staff and how they wanted their care provided. Care plans were developed and reviewed regularly.

•People were able to make decisions about their care and support and to maintain control of their lives. Staff supported people to do as much for themselves as possible.

•People said staff were kind, compassionate and caring and took their time to carry out their duties and did not rush. People said they were listened to and that they were treated respect.

•People told us they received their medicines when they needed them. Staff administered people’s medicines safely.

•People were supported people to access health care professionals when they needed them. The staff worked with oth

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 May 2019

The service was safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 May 2019

The service was effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 May 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 May 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 May 2019

The service was not consistently well led.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.