You are here

Archived: Support at Home Service in Great Yarmouth and Waveney Requires improvement

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 April 2017

The inspection took place on 8 February 2017. We contacted the service before we visited to announce the inspection. This was because the service supports people in their own homes. We wanted to ensure that we could access the service’s office and speak with the manager and the volunteers.

Support at Home Great Yarmouth and Waveney provides support to people who require assistance with Saphena (anti-embolism) socks when they return home following surgery. Prior to fitting the Saphena socks volunteers supported with washing and applying cream to the area where the stockings would be fitted. As this involves personal care it is therefore a service which the Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates.

The service was supporting two people in the Great Yarmouth and Waveney area when we inspected. From July 2016 to February 2017 the service had supported 7 people with their Saphena socks care. Support at Home Great Yarmouth and Waveney provided other volunteer services, however CQC do not regulate these. This report only relates to the Saphena sock care element of the service. People were supported by a group of volunteers. The service employed two coordinators and a manager. This was the service’s first inspection.

There was not a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. There had not been a registered manager for some time, although there was an acting manager.

When we contacted the service to announce our visit we were informed that the service was being provided from a different location to that registered with CQC. The provider had not informed us of this change and therefore the service was not registered correctly. We asked the provider to rectify this and shortly after this inspection CQC received an application from the provider to request changes to correct their registration.

The service was not monitoring the practice, skills, and knowledge of the volunteers who were performing the regulated activity, to ensure they were competent in this role.

The service was not completing internal audits to test the quality of the service. People’s risk assessments and records were not being audited. There was a lack of systems in place to always ensure the service responded appropriately to maintain people’s safety.

The provider’s audit had not identified all of the issues that we identified in this inspection.

These issues all contributed to a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The service was not completing robust risk assessments for the people the service supported. Volunteers were expected to complete risk assessments when they started to visit people, but they did not have training about how to do this. People’s records did not demonstrate that people’s needs and the potential risks which they faced had been fully explored by the service.

Volunteers and staff received an induction to the service and had on going training provided on a regular basis. The volunteers spoke positively of the training they received. The volunteers, staff and the manager were motivated to provide good care to people.

Volunteers understood the importance of responding to concerns about people’s health. The service had a duty system to support volunteers. Volunteers said they felt confident to respond effectively in an emergency situation.

The volunteers demonstrated they understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse. Volunteers were aware of this potential issue and knew what to do if they had concerns.

People benefited from volunteers and staff who fe

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 April 2017

The service was not always safe.

The service was not completing robust risk assessments relating to the people the service supported.

Staff knew what to do if they had any concerns and they were confident in raising these.



Updated 12 April 2017

The service was effective.

However, the service did not have systems to monitor the competence of volunteers to ensure they were effective in their role after their induction.

The training and induction that volunteers received, contributed to the effective support people experienced.

People received care and support in the way they wanted because volunteers understood the importance of gaining people’s consent.



Updated 12 April 2017

The service was caring.

People benefited from having positive and caring relationships with the volunteers who supported them.

People felt respected and listened to.

People told us they would recommend the service and use it again if they needed to.

Volunteers understood the importance of maintaining people’s dignity and privacy and worked in a way that promoted and protected this.



Updated 12 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People saw a regular volunteer at their agreed times.

People received care and support that was individual to their needs.

People were supported to avoid social isolation.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 April 2017

The service was not always well led.

The service did not have a registered manager and there were issues with how the service was registered with the CQC.

There was limited quality monitoring of staff practice and records.

Audits were not always effective.

There was a positive and open culture at the service.