We carried out a review of the data available to us about CHD Care at Home North Surrey 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 CHD Care at Home North Surrey, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People received a flexible service that was responsive to their individual needs. The agency responded well if people needed to change their care arrangements, including at short notice. The agency had also responded quickly to support people in an emergency, for example if they had become unwell.
People received consistent support from kind and caring staff. Staff understood people’s individual needs and their preferences about their care. People had established close relationships with their regular care workers and looked forward to their visits. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity when providing their care.
The support that staff provided enabled people to remain as independent as possible. Staff supported people to attend appointments, go shopping and to maintain their involvement in their community. 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’s needs and any potential risks involved in their care were assessed before they used the service. Where risks were identified, measures had been implemented to mitigate these.
Care plans were comprehensive and personalised according to people’s individual needs. People were encouraged to give feedback about their care through surveys and regular quality checks. If people had raised concerns or suggested changes, the registered manager had used these to improve the service.
The agency communicated well with other professionals to ensure people received the care they needed. Staff monitored people’s health and reported any concerns they observed to the management team. This enabled the management team or people’s families to arrange appropriate healthcare input.
The management team maintained an effective oversight of the service and addressed any issues highlighted through quality monitoring. Team meetings were held regularly and staff were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service.
Staff had the induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles. Staff had access to management supervision, which provided opportunities to review their performance and discuss any development needs. The management team carried out spot checks to monitor staff practice and the care people received.
Staff received medicines training and their practice was observed before they were authorised to administer medicines. Recent audits carried out by the management team had identified some errors in the recording of medicines. The registered manager had reminded staff of correct procedures at a team meeting and, after our inspection, arranged further training for staff.
The provider had robust recruitment procedures which helped ensure only suitable staff were employed. Staff received safeguarding training and understood their roles in protecting people from abuse. If concerns had been raised about staff conduct, these had been appropriately reported, investigated and addressed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published on 6 December 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Longdene Homecare Ltd - North Surrey provides care and support to people in their own homes. The service provided personal care to 72 people at the time of our inspection.
People felt safe when staff supported them and told us they could rely on their care workers. They said staff understood their needs and any risks involved in their care. Risk assessments had been carried out to ensure people receiving care and the staff supporting them were safe. Incidents and accidents were recorded and analysed to identify what action could be taken to be taken to prevent a recurrence. Staff understood how to respond in the event of an emergency and there were plans in place to address the needs of those people most at risk if their care was interrupted. People received their medicines safely.
People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. The provider carried out pre-employment checks to ensure they employed only suitable staff to work at the agency. Staff received training in safeguarding and were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns they had about potential abuse.
Staff received the training and support they needed to do their jobs. All staff attended an induction when they started work and met regularly with their line manager to receive feedback about their performance and to discuss their training needs. Staff received training in core areas during their induction and ongoing refresher training thereafter.
The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which meant people’s care was provided in line with the Act. Mental capacity assessments had been carried out to establish whether people had the capacity to consent to decisions about their care. Where people lacked capacity, best interests meetings were held to ensure they received the support they needed to make decisions.
People’s nutritional needs were assessed before they began to use the service and any dietary needs recorded in their care plans. Where people needed assistance with eating and drinking a care plan had been developed to detail the support they required. The quality of meal preparation was checked by the management team during spot checks.
The agency worked co-operatively with people’s families to ensure their healthcare needs were met. Relatives told us staff were observant of any changes in their family member’s needs and said the provider contacted them if they had any concerns about people’s health or welfare.
People were supported by kind and caring staff. People said their care workers were polite, friendly and treated them with respect. They told us their care workers provided their care in an unhurried way and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. Relatives said care workers were caring in their approach and sensitive to their family members’ needs.
People received a service that was responsive to their needs. People’s needs were assessed before they began to use the service and an individual care plan drawn up. People were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care plans and the provider reviewed plans regularly to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs and preferences. Staff were willing to be flexible to provide the service people needed.
The provider had a complaints procedure, which was given to people when they started to use the service. We found that any complaints received had been investigated appropriately and that complaints were used to improve the service people received.
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give their views about the service and these were listened to. People and their relatives told us the management team contacted them regularly to ask for their feedback and took action to address any issues they raised. People told us the agency was well run and that they had always been able to contact the office when they needed to.
Staff told us they received good support from the management team, including when they were working out-of-hours. There were systems in place for staff to share information about people’s needs and about good practice, including regular team meetings and focused workshops. The registered manager maintained a good overview of the service and ensured they communicated regularly with people who used the service, their relatives and staff.
There were effective quality monitoring systems in place and the registered manager developed an action plan to address any shortfalls identified. The provider’s governance audits checked key aspects of the service and the quality monitoring system included spot checks on staff providing people’s care. Care and medicines records maintained by staff were returned to the office regularly for auditing by the management team.
People told us that they or their relatives were involved in the initial development of their care plan.
People told us they received care in a way which met their needs. One person commented, "I generally have regular staff, which I really appreciate'.
People told us that they felt safe with the agency staff and that the staff carried identification badges. The care co-ordinators told us that they had received safeguarding training as part of their induction and that the training was repeated on a yearly basis.
People were recruited safely and checks were undertaken to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. We looked at staff recruitment records for six staff. All staff files we saw complied with all legal requirements.
The provider had in place effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of service which sought people's views and changed practice as a consequence where required.