You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 December 2013
Date of Publication: 28 January 2014
Inspection Report published 28 January 2014 PDF | 83.31 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 December 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. People informed us that if they wanted aspects of their care support changed they could request this from the care staff. This was demonstrated by the comment from one person who told us, “I asked for the times to be changed and they changed the schedule, readjusted the time.”

We asked a senior worker how the care provided was monitored for quality and we were informed, “I undertake several visits, read care reports, encourage carers to ring me and families can ring me.” The same workers also advised that, “Part of my role is to check for poor practice, I may do spot checks”.

Decisions about care and treatment were made by the appropriate staff at the appropriate level. We were told by a member of the reablement team that if a person using the service was reported as requiring additional care support, due to any deterioration, then a senior care worker reassessed and increased the care support as required.

There was evidence that learning from incidents / investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. As an example we observed there was a complaint logged in regard to out of date food in a person’s own home. The service recorded that with hindsight care staff needed to ensure they checked expiry dates on food. The service manager advised that good practice and areas for improvements were shared with all staff at team meetings. This was evidenced in the team meeting minutes that we saw.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. This was demonstrated when the manager showed us the complaints record showing that the reablement service had received two complaints. Both complaints were listed as “Not Upheld.” We noted these complaints were concluded within appropriate timescales.

We spoke to nine people who used the service and one relative. None of the people we spoke with had felt it necessary to make any complaints about the reablement service. One person told us, “They’ve been very good in every way, no complaints.” Another person told us, “They are absolutely excellent; I filled in a card in the care book with my views.”

The reablement service manager also informed us that recognising the value of sharing positive comments from people who have used the service with the whole team was important. We were informed that these comments were shared at regular staff meetings and with the local authorities’ complaints department.

We saw two letters sent to the reablement service with compliments, one from a relative of a person who had accessed the service and one from a person who had used the service themselves directly. There were comments within these letters such as, “…they were very professional, provided excellent care and attention” and that a carer had, “walked the extra mile for me”.