You are here

Home Support Reablement Service Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The inspection took place on 27 September 2017 and was announced. This was the first rated inspection for this service.

Home Support Reablement Service is a short term reablement service provided by Bolton Council. Personal care is provided in people's home to support them, following a hospital admission, to return to independent living.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 recruitment procedure was robust and sufficient staff were in place to meet the needs of people who currently used the service.

There was an appropriate safeguarding policy, staff had undertaken training and safeguarding issues were logged on the system and followed up appropriately. There was an appropriate health and safety policy in place and individual and general risk assessments were in place.

An appropriate medicines policy was in place, staff received training and regular competence checks and medicines were managed well within the service.

The induction programme was thorough and training was on-going. We saw evidence of close partnership working within the service’s multi-agency team and appropriate referrals were made to agencies outside the team.

We saw evidence of regular staff supervision sessions and annual personal development reviews. The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA).

People who used the service told us the staff were kind and caring and understood the importance of respecting privacy and dignity. People were involved in care planning and reviews of support and we saw that people who used the service were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Information given to new users of the service was clear and informative. Feedback was encouraged and used to inform improvements to the service.

People we spoke with told us the service was flexible and responsive. The aim of the service was to provide a response time, within the agreed timeframes.

The service was person-centred and care files we looked at evidenced that people’s preferences, likes and dislikes were documented.

There was an appropriate complaints policy, which people who used the service that we spoke with were aware of. Concerns or minor complaints were dealt with in a timely manner and complaints and incidents were logged and investigated appropriately.

The service had regular multi-disciplinary team meetings, handovers and safety huddles. There were regular team meetings and the minutes were available.

The service undertook a number of regular audits, spot checks and competence checks. Action plans were produced and progress monitored to help ensure continual improvement.

The service was subject to an annual audit by the quality assurance team. Any service changes were added to the service’s continual improvement action plans.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was safe.

The recruitment procedure was robust and sufficient staff were in place to meet the needs of people who currently used the service.

There was an appropriate safeguarding policy, staff had undertaken training and safeguarding issues were logged and followed up appropriately. There was a health and safety policy in place and individual and general risk assessments were in place.

An appropriate medicines policy was in place, staff received training and regular competence checks and medicines were managed well within the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was effective.

The induction programme was thorough and training was on-going. We saw evidence of close partnership working within the service�s multi-agency team and appropriate referrals were made to agencies outside the team.

Staff were supported by regular supervision sessions and annual personal development reviews.

The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA).

Caring

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service told us the staff were kind and caring and understood the importance of respecting privacy and dignity.

People who used the service were involved in care planning and reviews of support. Individuals were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Information given to new users of the service was clear and informative. Feedback was encouraged and used to inform improvements to the service.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People we spoke with told us the service was flexible and responsive. The aim of the service was to provide a response time, within the agreed timeframes.

The service was person-centred and care files evidenced that people�s preferences, likes and dislikes were documented.

There was an appropriate complaints policy. Concerns or minor complaints were dealt with in a timely manner and complaints and incidents were logged and investigated appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was well-led.

The service had regular multi-disciplinary team meetings, handovers and safety huddles. There were regular team meetings and the minutes were available.

There were a number of regular audits, spot checks and competence checks undertaken. Action plans were produced and progress monitored to help ensure continual improvement.

The service was subject to an annual audit by the quality assurance team. Any service changes were added to the service�s continual improvement action plans.