We carried out a review of the data available to us about Royal Greenwich Re-ablement Service on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Royal Greenwich Re-ablement Service, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection on 7 and 9 June 2016 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The service demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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. They were aware of the legal requirement to display their current CQC rating which we saw was displayed the providers website.
The service had safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures in place, and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work. There was enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Risks to people were assessed to ensure their needs were safely met. People received their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals. Staff received training in infection control and they were aware of the steps to take to reduce the risk of the spread of infections. There were systems in place for monitoring, investigating and learning from incidents and accidents.
People were referred to the reablement service by hospital discharge teams and social services. Their care needs were assessed before they started using the service. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing, and when they had any concerns about people’s conditions they were referred to appropriate healthcare professionals. People were supported to eat and drink when required. Staff received supervision and training relevant to people’s needs. Staff were aware of the importance of seeking consent from the people they supported. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received personalised care that met their needs. People told us staff were kind and caring and their privacy and dignity was respected. They had been consulted about their care and support needs. They knew about the provider’s complaints procedure and were confident their complaints would be dealt with appropriately. Staff supported people according to their diverse needs. People could communicate their needs effectively and could understand information in the written format provided to them. Information was available in different formats when it was required.
There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Feedback from people was used make improvements to the service where required. Staff said they enjoyed working at the service and they received good support from the management team and office staff. There was an out of hours on call system in operation that ensured management support and advice was available for staff when they needed it.
The service did not have a registered manager in post. The previous registered manager left their post in April 2016. The provider had appointed a new manager to run the service. The new manager had begun the process of applying to the CQC to become the registered manager for the reablement service.
People using the service said they felt safe and that staff treated them well. Staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s care and support needs. Appropriate procedures were in place to support people where risks to their health and welfare had been identified. Medicines were managed safely and people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.
Staff completed an induction when they started work and they were up to date with the provider’s mandatory training. The team manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and acted according to this legislation. Peoples care files included assessments relating to their dietary needs and there were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that people were receiving food and fluids. They were encouraged and supported to cook for themselves. People had access to a GP and other health care professionals when they needed it.
People were provided with appropriate information about the service. People said they had been consulted about their care and support needs, staff were caring and helpful and staff treated them with dignity and respect. People were receiving appropriate care and support that met their needs. Peoples care plans provided information for staff on how to support people to meet their needs. People were aware of the complaints procedure and said they were confident their complaints would be listened to, investigated and action taken if necessary.
The provider recognised the importance of monitoring the quality of the service provided to people. They took into account the views of people using the service through satisfaction surveys and telephone monitoring calls. The provider carried out unannounced spot checks to make sure people were supported in line with their care plans. Staff said they enjoyed working at the service and they received good support from the managers and office staff. There was an out of hours on call system in operation that ensured management support and advice was always available when they needed it.
We found that the provider had arrangements in place for obtaining consent from people who used the service. We found that people's care needs were planned for and met. We found that staff were aware of their responsibility to prevent and report any form of abuse or neglect. Support was in place to ensure that staff received an adequate induction, supervision and training. We found that people's care and support plans, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the services were accurate and fit for purpose.
People told us it was consistently the same staff that came to their homes to provide their care and support. They said that staff were always very respectful and knocked before entering their homes. They told us that staff made every effort to speak with them about how they were developing, and improving in their ability to do things for themselves, so that they could progress towards complete independence. One person said: 'The staff are very understanding and really know what to do, and will do other small jobs if I need extra help. They are very respectful and will slow down the conversation so that I understand them. I feel in safe hands and am very happy with the service. There is a care plan in my home and the staff update it every visit and ask me to sign'. This comment was reflective of the comments we received from all of the people we spoke with who used the service.
People said that the agency sometimes contacted them to ask about staff attendance and about the quality of the care they provided.