You are here

Archived: Hastings Community Support Service Outstanding

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Outstanding

Updated 18 May 2018

This announced comprehensive inspection took place on 6 February 2018.

Hastings Community Support Service was registered with the Care Quality Commission in June 2015 as a domiciliary care service. It provides personal care to a range of older adults and younger adults living in their own houses or flats in the community. These included older and younger adults who may have a learning disability or an autistic spectrum disorder. The provider was East Sussex County Council. There were six people using the service.

At our last inspection in October 2015 we rated the service as good in safe, effective, caring and well led with outstanding in responsive. This gave an overall rating of good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the previous ratings of good in safe, effective and caring, with outstanding in responsive. However, well led had also now improved to outstanding. This made the service overall rating had now improved to outstanding.

There was registered manager in post. 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.

Hastings Community Support Service was run with people at the heart of the service. It was outstanding in the way it responded to people’s changing needs and put people first at all times. There was a strong focus on encouraging people to become independent and this was the ethos of the organisation which was embedded in the service.

The service supported people to live as able a life as possible by trying out new hobbies, activities, interests and form community links. People and staff felt a sense of well-being when people had achieved this.

There was outstanding engagement with partner agencies and the service demonstrated seamless working, transparency, responsibility and accountability by working with them. People received care and support that was seamless as a result of this. People were supported and encouraged to achieve challenges and goals. Extreme close working between other partnership organisations enabled people to be supported in the wider community. People were helped and supported to achieve a more independent way of living that meant they relied less on help and support from the service.

People’s care and support was well planned, with comprehensive plans in place to guide staff. Care was personalised and individual to meet people’s differing needs. Risks were identified and as least restrictive as possible. All the necessary actions were taken to reduce risks while maintaining people’s independence.

People had a ‘communication passport’ which detailed their communication needs and any assistance that may be required. All documentation used within the service had been transcribed into easy read versions for people to access and understand.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff assisted them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it applied it their day to day roles. Any decisions made in people’s best interests were carried out and recorded with all the appropriate people involved.

Staff rotas were regularly changed to accommodate people’s daily lives and all staff willingly changed to support people as they considered it part of their job role.

People were protected by a safe and effective recruitment process. Staff were very motivated, passionate and very proud of the service they delivered. They enjoyed their jobs, felt valued and that their opinions mattered. They received training, support and supervision to do their jobs properly and felt included and listened to. Staff had a good understanding of what constituted

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service remains safe.

The service was safe.

Risks to individuals were assessed and recorded to reduce risk in then least restrictive way possible.

People received their medicines safely.

People were protected from the risk of harm by staff who had been trained and knew how to recognise abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people�s needs fully.

People were protected from a safe and robust recruitment process.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service remains effective.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which promoted people�s rights.

Staff undertook training and supervision to carry out their roles properly.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals.

People were encouraged to eat and drink a nutritious diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2018

The service remains caring.

People were treated with respect and dignity.

Staff were kind, caring and passionate about their jobs.

Staff knew people well and had built up good relationships.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 18 May 2018

The service remains outstanding.

The service remains outstanding.

Support plans were based on people�s individual needs and assessed and reviewed regularly.

Complaints were dealt with effectively.

People were encouraged to undertake activities in the wider community and encouraged to develop their skills.

The service was extremely responsive to people�s needs and staff rotas were changed daily to achieve this.

The service complied with the accessible information standard and all documents used within the service had versions all people could read and understand.

Well-led

Outstanding

Updated 18 May 2018

The service has improved to outstanding.

The service is very well led. The manager was well thought of by people and staff. They encouraged staff to develop their roles.

There were extensive links with partnership organisations and very close working relationships which benefitted people using the service by providing them with support, education and varied activities.

The culture of the service was open and staff felt involved in decision making. They were proud of the service and celebrated people�s achievements.

There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to effect continuous improvement. People and staff were included in the development of the service and their opinions sought.