London Borough of Merton - Reablement Service

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us staff treated them with respect and met their individual needs and preferences. They said, “I was involved with the care plan, and it was only tweaked on the basis that she wanted to be more independent than she needed to be! But that did not cause any problems, and they were very flexible with her.”

Care records included person-centred achievable goals that staff supported people to achieve. Care plan summaries were completed which showed the support provided and the goals that had been achieved to successfully reable people. A staff member said, “We look at what they can do for their themselves, we help them to get them back to their baseline. We put in goals for them to achieve that.”

The provider had a culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems in place to record any incidents and accidents. The registered manager told us, “We have an incidents and accidents log that we monitor.” Support workers explained the process they used when reporting any incidents.

We reviewed the incidents log with the registered manager, which showed the incidents that had taken place, any action taken and lessons learnt.

Any lessons learnt or themes were discussed in Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings which helped to ensure these were embedded in future practice.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and their relatives told us they were given copies of their care plans which they had consented and agreed to.

During the referral and settling in visits, staff asked and assessed whether people had any communication or information needs related to a disability or sensory loss. This included asking about preferred formats and/or communication needs. The registered manager told us that interpreter services were available to provide support to people that did not speak English as a first language and there was also a sensory team available to provide any support if people had any communication needs.

The registered manager told us that people were given information required to maintain their independence, for example by workingclosely with Age UK, and other voluntary sector organisations.

Feedback surveys were written as accessible documents that were sent to all people to provide feedback irrespective of disability.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew who to contact if they wanted to provide any feedback. People were told during the settling in visit how to raise a complaint if needed. People were also given the opportunity to provide ongoing feedback through their support visits which were carried out by reablement officers. They said, “The reablement service was very good and we had no complaints!”

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Individual supervision meetings were held and gave staff an opportunity to provide feedback. Staff said the registered manager was open to suggestions and took their ideas on board.

There were escalation procedures in place if there were any concerns raised about the deputy or registered manager, including the HR department or the service manager. Three formal complaint had been received about the service in the past 12 months; one had been upheld. In all cases, the provider investigated and responded to the complaints raised.

A healthcare professional told us, “They actively listen to the views of the people they support, ensuring that care is tailored to individual needs and preferences.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received care and support from staff according to their individual assessed needs and wishes.

Staff understood people had a right to receive equal access to health and care support, regardless of any disabilities.

The provider had a culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems in place to record any incidents and accidents. The registered manager told us, “We have an incidents and accidents log that we monitor.” Support workers explained the process they used when reporting any incidents.

We reviewed the incidents log with the registered manager, which showed the incidents that had taken place, any action taken and lessons learnt.

Any lessons learnt or themes were discussed in Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings which helped to ensure these were embedded in future practice.

The provider had a culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems in place to record any incidents and accidents. The registered manager told us, “We have an incidents and accidents log that we monitor.” Support workers explained the process they used when reporting any incidents.

We reviewed the incidents log with the registered manager, which showed the incidents that had taken place, any action taken and lessons learnt.

Any lessons learnt or themes were discussed in Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings which helped to ensure these were embedded in future practice.