You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 9 August 2018

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of Right at Home Solent on 9 August 2018. This was the service’s first inspection.

Right at Home Solent is a domiciliary care service providing personal care for people in their own homes in Fareham and the surrounding area. Not everyone using Right at Home Solent receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection 68 people were being supported by the service.

There was not a registered manager in post. 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. The service was led by the manager who had applied to register with the Care Quality Commission.

This service is rated as outstanding because of the extensive evidence of exceptional care and staff going the extra mile to put people at the forefront of all the service hoped to achieve. The feedback from people and relatives was consistently positive and exceptional and it was clear there was a person centred culture.

We were greeted warmly by staff at the service. The atmosphere was extremely open and friendly.

People told us they benefitted from extremely caring relationships with the staff. Staff supported people on a personal level and went the extra mile to improve people’s lives. Staff knew the people they supported well and promoted their wellbeing. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people received their care when they expected. Staffing levels and visit schedules were consistently maintained and the service was as flexible as possible with people’s visit preferences. The service had safe, robust recruitment processes.

People were treated as individuals by highly motivated staff, committed to respecting people’s individual preferences. The service’s diversity policy actively supported this culture. Care plans were very person centred and people had been actively involved in developing their support plans.

People experienced high levels of dignity and respect from caring staff. Staff also provided exceptional emotional support and were quick to identify and act on people’s emotional support needs.

People were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.

Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. A culture of positive risk taking was evident which promoted people’s independence. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicine as prescribed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff had a very good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected.

People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. We saw a complaints policy and procedure was in place. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the manager. Staff supervision and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the manager and senior staff and directors were approachable and there was an excellent level of communication within the service.

People told us the service was extremely friendly, very responsive and well managed. People knew the managers and staff and spoke positively about them. The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them.