You are here

Right at Home (Sutton and Epsom) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

This inspection took place on the 5 and 8 September 2017 and was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that staff would be available in the office, as this is our methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.

Right at Home (Sutton and Epsom) is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes for older and younger people, some of who had dementia, sensory impairment, physical disabilities and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 37 people.

A registered manager was 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.

People told us that they felt safe with staff who attended to their needs. Staff had a good understanding of the different types of abuse and the procedures to be followed if they had witnessed or suspected abuse had taken place. Staff were provided with the contact details for the local authority safeguarding team. Robust recruitment processes were followed to help ensure that only suitable people were employed at the agency. The provider had completed one safeguarding concern that staff had raised through provider’s whistle-blowing procedures which was safely resolved.

People were supported by enough staff to ensure their needs were met. There was a system in place to protect people from potential risks and staff had a good understanding of how to manage identified risks. Person centred care plans were in place for people and included information about how people preferred to be supported.

People were safe because accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored by the registered manager. These were discussed with staff to help minimise the risk of a repeated event. If an emergency occurred at the office or there were adverse weather conditions, people’s care would not be interrupted as there were procedures in place and were known by staff. There was an on-call system for assistance outside of normal working hours and staff would be able to access records to ensure people’s assessed needs would continue to be met.

People were support by staff who received training, supervisions and annual appraisals that helped them to meet people’s needs. They also received spot checks by management whilst they were working with people to ensure they supported the person effectively. New staff commencing their duties undertook induction training to help prepare them for their role.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Where people had restrictions placed on them these were done in their best interests using appropriate safeguards. Staff had a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) as well as their responsibilities in respect of this.

People’s nutritional needs were met by staff who would cook meals for those who required this type of support. Each meal provided was recorded in care records. Identified concerns in relation to eating and drinking were monitored through the use of food and fluid charts. Staff alerted people’s relatives where concerns had been identified and Healthcare professionals were involved as and when required.

People were supported by staff to remain as independent as they were able. People were encouraged to complete daily tasks such as washing and dressing. People told us that staff showed kindness and their privacy and dignity were respected by staff who attended to them.

People were protected because a complaints procedure was available for any concerns they had. All people had been provided with a copy of this document. Complaints received by the provider had been investigated and re

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people had been identified and written guidance about how to manage risks was being followed by staff.

There were safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from potential abuse. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities.

Robust recruitment processes were followed.

There were enough staff deployed to meet the needs of people currently using the service.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored by staff to help minimise the risk of repeated events.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and had opportunities to meet with their line manager regularly.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and their responsibilities in respect of this.

People were supported with their health and dietary needs. When a risk had been identified in relation to a person’s nutrition and hydration appropriate tools were used to monitor the risk posed.

.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was caring.

Staff showed people respect and made them feel that they mattered.

Staff were caring and kind to people.

People were supported to remain independent and make their own decisions.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was responsive to people's needs.

Staff responded well to people’s needs or changing needs and care plans were in place for each person.

Information about how to make a complaint was available for people and their relatives.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was well-led.

Quality assurance checks were completed to help ensure the care provided was of good quality. There was a system in place to ascertain the views of people about the care and support they received from the agency.

There was a registered manager in post to manage the activity for personal care.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager who had an open door policy.