Archived: Cambridgeshire County Council Reablement Service North (Huntingdon Team)

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection, 44 people received the regulated activity, personal care. In the last 12 months, 403 people received care and or support from this service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff did not always follow the provider’s policy when administering people’s medicines. This meant senior staff were unable to effectively monitor that people’s medicines were administered safely and in line with the prescriber’s instructions.

Staff worked well together. They understood, and met, people’s needs, supporting them to regain their independence. People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination.

The provider had systems in place to make sure they only employed staff once they had checked they were suitable to work with people who used the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff had the time to ensure people’s needs were met safely, and in a way that suited them. Staff were trained and very well supported to meet people’s assessed needs.

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. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Staff were respectful when they spoke with, and about, people. People praised staff and the service they received from them. Support was person-centred and met each person’s specific needs and goals. People and their relatives were involved in developing and reviewing their, or their family member's, care plans.

People and their families felt able to raise concerns. The provider had systems in place, including a complaints procedure, to deal with any concerns or complaints. The registered manager promoted a culture that focused on people as individuals. The provider had put robust systems in place to effectively monitor the service and bring about further improvement.

Staff were proud to work for the service and worked in partnership with external professionals to help support and promote people’s well-being.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (our last inspection report was published on 14 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 18 and 19 January 2017 and was announced

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

People had their needs assessed and reviewed so that staff knew how to support them to improve their independence. People’s support plans and goals contained clear information about the person. The information was up to date and correct. People had risk assessments completed and staff had the necessary information they needed to reduce people’s risks. People were respected by staff and staff treated them with kindness.

There was a system in place to record complaints. This included the outcomes of complaints and how the information was used to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and could describe how people were supported to make decisions. Training had been provided by the service and staff were aware of current information and regulations regarding people’s care. This meant that there was a reduced risk that any decisions made on people's behalf by staff would not be in their best interest and as least restrictive as possible.

The risk of harm for people was reduced because staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Staff had completed all training required by the provider. There was a system to ensure that staff received further training to update their skills.

The provider’s recruitment process was followed and this meant that people using the service received care from suitable staff. There was a sufficient number of staff to meet the needs of people receiving a service.

Staff meetings, supervision and individual staff appraisals were completed regularly. Staff were supported by care co-ordinators, senior reablement support workers, the reablement manager and the registered manager during the day. An out of hours on call system was in place to support staff, when required.

There were systems in place to monitor and audit the quality of the service provided. This meant that the provider was able to drive forward the necessary improvements needed.