You are here

Cumbria Care Reablement Service - Kendal Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 March 2018

The inspection visit took place on 1 February 2018, with telephone calls to people using the service carried out from 30 January to 7 February 2018. This was the first inspection of the service.

Cumbria Care Reablement Service – Kendal is operated and managed by Cumbria County Council. The reablement service provides flexible support from a few days up to approximately 6 weeks for people living in the community. Its primary aims are to: promote independence so that people can remain living in their own home; help people recover faster from illness; prevent unnecessary admission to hospital and long term care facilities and to support safe hospital discharges. The service had two dedicated occupational therapist and an outreach team based in Lancaster Royal Infirmary and Furness General Hospital in Barrow-in-Furness. At the time of the inspection 120 people were using the service.

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.

We found that the service successfully focussed on providing support that enabled people to become more independent. People told us that the service had a positive impact on their physical and mental well-being.

People were fully involved in completing an initial assessment and the planning of their care and support. People's support plans set realistic goals and were very regularly reviewed. As these goals were met new ones set to ensure people continued to progress.

Staff were well trained, skilled, knowledgeable in supporting people with range of support, health and social needs, such as supporting people living with dementia, people with a physical impairment and as well as offering support to people at the end of their life. Where support with medicines was part of an assessed support need, these were managed appropriately and staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records.

The service had appropriate systems and procedures in place which sought to protect people who used the service from abuse. Staff demonstrated a working knowledge of local safeguarding procedures and how to raise a concern.

Recruitment and selection of staff was robust with safe recruitment practices in place. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to ensure potential employees were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Accidents, incidents and risks were appropriately recorded and included details of preventive strategies used by the service to reduce the likelihood of events occurring in the future.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Services were delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff sought consent prior to providing care and offered people choices to encourage people to make their own decisions.

Staff were very well motivated, passionate and enthused about helping people to become as independent as they were able. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and were skilled in promoting their independence.

People received information which detailed the complaints procedure. They told us they were confident that if they were required to make a complaint, the management would respond and resolve their issue promptly.

The culture of the service was positive, person centred, forward thinking and inclusive. There was a strong ethos centred on effective partnership and excellent working relationships had been forged with other community health and social care professionals.

The service was very well led by the registered manager who was keen to employ innovative ways of working to develo

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 March 2018

The service was safe

Staff were aware of the risks people faced and their role in managing these.

People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff understood their role and had confidence to report any concerns.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely with appropriate pre-employment, reference and identity checks.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 March 2018

The service was effective.

Good systems were in place to ensure that people received support from staff that had the right training and skills to provide the care they needed.

People received support that made a positive difference to their lives.

Staff were aware of people�s healthcare needs and worked closely with other professionals to promote and improve people�s health and well-being.

Staff ensured they obtained people�s consent to care.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 March 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported to maintain their privacy and dignity.

People were very skilfully and sensitively supported by staff to increase their independence and to regain daily living skills. Staff focussed on developing confidence and reducing dependency for long term care.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 March 2018

The service was very responsive.

Care and support was person-centred and was flexible according to people's needs.

Assessments were very thorough and people�s support was regularly reviewed in conjunction with them, their relatives and relevant professionals.

The complaints process was robust.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 March 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had a registered manager in post. People using the service, their relatives and staff were very positive about the registered manager.

Clear values underpinned the service which were focussed on promoting independence and providing flexible, responsive care.

Systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included regular audits, meetings and feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. Action had been taken, or was planned, where the need for improvement was identified.