You are here

We are carrying out checks at HomeCare Reablement Service. We will publish a report when our check is complete.


Inspection carried out on 30 December 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection was conducted on 30 December 2016, 16 January and 31 January 2017. We gave the registered manager two days’ notice as this is a domiciliary care service and we wished to make sure that key staff would be available. The previous inspection was held on 19 September 2013 and the provider met the regulations we checked.

The Homecare Reablement Service is managed by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activity of personal care. It offers a free service for up to six weeks to people living in their own homes within the borough and provides personal care, reablement and other support following a stay in hospital or an illness at home. However, the intervention period is flexible and could be longer than six weeks, depending on a person’s individual needs and circumstances. The service is available for people aged 18 and above, and there were 47 people using the service at the time of the inspection.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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. The registered manager was present throughout the inspection.

People were encouraged wherever possible to independently administer their own medicines and staff had received training in regards to the safe administration of medicines. Care staff and the management team regularly liaised with a group of local health professionals from different disciplines, who contributed to the reablement process. Staff told us they benefitted from these close working relationships, which enabled them to promptly seek any guidance about different aspects of people’s medicine needs and healthcare needs. Although there was a system in place for staff to record at each visit if they supported people with their medicines, people were placed at risk of receiving unsafe care as the provider did not ensure that there was an up to date record of prescribed medicines in people’s care and support plans.

People informed us they always felt safe using the service and were at ease permitting staff into their own homes. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse as they understood the provider’s safeguarding policy and had received appropriate training, including how to immediately report any concerns about people’s safety to their line manager. There were systems in place to identify actual and potential risks to people’s safety, for example risk management plans were developed to advise staff how to promote people’s independence while taking into account the need to mitigate risks.

The provider operated rigorous recruitment practices to ensure that suitable staff were appointed. People stated that they received a reliable and efficient service. There were sufficient staff deployed to ensure that people received the care and support they needed, which included ‘double-up’ calls from two members of staff, if required.

Staff received a comprehensive training programme, which included training to specifically address the needs of people receiving a reablement service. There were formal arrangements in place to provide staff with support and supervision during one to one and group meetings and the management team were described by staff as being “always very approachable” if ad hoc advice and support was needed.

CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Discussions with members of the management and staff team demonstrated that the provider understood their legal responsibilities under the MCA and they assessed people’s capacity when they began using the service, and reassessed people during the period of their care and support if needed.

People, and their relatives where

Inspection carried out on 19 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the service were fully consulted and involved in how their care and support was to be delivered. Staff were mindful of seeking people’s permission before providing the service.

People’s needs were appropriately assessed and their care and support designed to help them regain some lost independence. Care was provided by staff that were trained to support people in the event of a health emergency.

The provider appropriately liaised with other services to ensure people’s identified needs were met. Care was well co-ordinated by staff that knew the person and social workers were provided with detailed assessments that ensured people’s on going care could be delivered safely.

The provider had clear recruitment policies and took steps to safeguard people by undertaking appropriate pre-employment checks.

Information about people was held securely and staff understood their responsibilities in managing other people’s personal information.

Inspection carried out on 6 November 2012

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us they really valued it and commented positively about how the service had improved their quality of life. People spoke highly of the staff team, their skills and approach.

The people who use the service described how they were fully involved in setting their care goals and planning the support they needed.

Inspection carried out on 10 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People using the service were encouraged to be involved in their care and staff respected their privacy and dignity. People using the service were satisfied with the care they received and were given information about the service. People using the service felt safe with the carers and would report any concerns to social services if they did not.