You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The inspection took place on 5 April 2017, and was an announced inspection. The registered manager was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. At the previous inspection on 18 November 2014 no breaches were found and the service was rated as good.

Reflective Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people with a learning disability who live in supported living accommodation. At the time of this inspection there were two people receiving support with their personal care. The service provided one to one support hours to people who were supported 24 hours a day although during this time may share staff for a period of time with other people who lived in the same house. The service was delivered in New Romney.

The service is run by 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.

People and relatives were involved in the initial assessment and the planning of their care and support. Care plans contained details of people’s wishes and preferences. People’s independence was encouraged wherever possible and this was supported by the care plan. Risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified and clear guidance was in place to keep people safe.

People had their needs met by sufficient numbers of staff. People received a service from a small team of staff. New staff underwent an induction programme, which included relevant training courses and shadowing experienced staff, until they were competent to work on their own. Staff received training appropriate to their role, which was refreshed regularly to ensure their knowledge remained up to date. The majority of staff had gained qualifications in health and social care.

People were supported to maintain good health and attend appointments and check-ups. People’s medicines were handled safely.

People’s consent was gained for the care and support they received and they were supported to make their own their own decisions where possible, sometimes using pictures. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. When people are assessed as not having the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision is made involving people who know the person well and other professionals, where relevant. The registered manager demonstrated they understood this process.

People and a relative felt staff were kind and caring. People were relaxed in staffs company and staff listened and acted on what they said. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff were kind and caring in their approach and knew people and their support needs well.

People and a relative felt people were safe using the service. The service had safeguarding procedures in place and staff had received training in these. Staff demonstrated an understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns in order to keep people safe.

People had opportunities to provide feedback about the service provided. Any negative feedback was used to drive improvements to the service. Audits and systems were in place to ensure the service ran effectively and people received a quality service. People saw the registered manager and director regularly, because they worked ‘hands on’ delivering some care and support. People felt confident in complaining, but did not have any concerns.

People felt the service was well-led and well organised. The provider had a set of objectives in place and staff followed these through into their practice.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was safe.

People received their medicines when they should and safely.

Risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified and guidance was in place to keep people safe.

People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff and these were kept under review.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was effective.

People’s care and support was delivered by regular staff, who were familiar with people’s preferred routines.

People received support from trained and supported staff. Staff encouraged people to make their own decisions and choices.

People were supported to maintain good health. Staff worked with health care professionals, such as doctors and psychologist.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect and staff adopted a kind and caring approach.

Staff supported people to develop their independence where possible.

Staff listened acted on what people told them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans reflected their wishes and preferences. Care plans supported developing or maintaining people’s independence.

People and relatives had opportunities to provide feedback about the service they received.

People were not socially isolated and were supported in a variety of activities and to go out and about into the community.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was well-led.

Communication within the service was good and staff worked as a team to ensure people received a quality service.

There were audits and systems in place to monitor the quality of care people received.

There was an open and positive culture within the service, which was focussed on people. Staff were aware of the provider’s objectives and these were followed through into their practice.