You are here

Archived: Hastings Community Support Service Outstanding


Inspection carried out on 6 February 2018

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 09 October 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 09 October 2015. To ensure we met staff at the service’s main office, we gave short notice of our inspection.

This location is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service provided support to thirty people with a learning disability in the community. However only two people received support with personal care which is a regulatory activity registered by CQC. This inspection focused on the care and support provided to two people where they received a service registered by CQC.

People who used the service were adults aged 18 and over with a learning disability. People had different communication needs. People used verbal and non-verbal communication.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual. Each risk assessment included clear control measures to reduce identified risks and protect people from harm. Risk assessments took account of people’s right to make their own decisions.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of reoccurrence could be reduced. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were adjusted according to people’s changing needs. There were safe recruitment procedures in place which included the checking of references.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines. However at the time of the inspection people did not require support to administer medicines. Staff provided assistance to support people to self-medicate correctly. Staff recorded the support provided on a medicines form.

Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their support needs. Each person’s needs and personal preferences had been assessed and were continually reviewed.

Staff were competent to meet people’s needs. Staff received on-going training and supervision to monitor their performance and professional development.

Staff had completed training in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff were able to explain the requirements of the legislation and how they protected people’s rights to make their own decisions.

The service supported people to have snacks and meals and supported people to make meals that met their needs and choices. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and needs.

Staff communicated effectively with people, responded to their needs promptly, and treated them with kindness and respect. People were satisfied about how their care and treatment was delivered. People’s privacy was respected and people were assisted in a way that respected their dignity.

People were involved in their day to day care and support. People’s care plans were reviewed with their participation and people’s relatives and relevant others were invited to attend the reviews and contribute.

People were promptly referred to health care professionals when needed. Personal records included people’s individual plans of care, life history, likes and dislikes and preferred activities. The staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves. People were involved in planning activities of their choice.

The service was flexible and responded quickly to people’s changing needs or wishes.

People received care that was based on their needs and preferences. They were involved in all aspects of their care and were supported to lead their lives in the way they wished to.

People’s views and opinions were sought and listened to. Feedback from people receiving support was used to drive improvements.

There was an open culture that put people at the centre of their care and support. Staff held a clear set of values based on respect for people, ensuring people had freedom of choice and support to be as independent as possible.

There was strong emphasis on continual improvement and best practice which benefited people and staff. There were robust systems to ensure quality and identify any potential improvements to the service. The registered manager promoted an open and inclusive culture that encouraged continual feedback.