You are here

Archived: RV Care Limited - Sussex Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

RV Extra Care - Sussex is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own houses and flats, most of whom live within the grounds of a retirement village. It is registered to provide care to those living with dementia, older people, physical disabilities, sensory impairments and younger adults.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 18 July 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection of this service since it was registered on 25 August 2017.

Not everyone using this service receives a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, which means help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people receive personal care we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service supported five people with their personal care needs.

The service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 provider had recruited to the role of registered manager and the person was in the process of obtaining CQC registration. A registered manager from another branch was providing cover as acting manager.

Quality systems and audits were in place to monitor the service people received, but did not always effectively identify areas for improvement. We found that some quality assurance processes were not undertaken as scheduled. The provider recognised these areas needed to be addressed and the acting manager had a support plan in place and we saw evidence this was being actioned. While these improvements were being made, time was now needed to fully embed the new systems and processes to sustain improvement. We did not find these inconsistencies had impacted on the safety of people, but is an area of practice that needs to improve.

People were protected from avoidable harm. There was a safeguarding policy and staff received training. Staff knew how to recognise the potential signs of abuse and knew what action to take to keep people safe.

Good systems and processes to keep people safe were maintained. One person told us, “They make me feel safe, they know what they’re doing.” Risks to people had been identified and staff understood people well and how to manage risks to help ensure people were safe. People were supported to receive their medicines safely by staff that were trained in administering medicines. The provider had a lone worker policy to ensure staff were kept safe in the community.

Staff were employed using appropriate recruitment practices. Staff received an induction and received essential training. When the acting manager identified additional training needs, we saw that this was put in place. Staff told us they felt well supported by the acting manager and the wider management team. One member of staff told us, “Its lovely to work here, I’ve been very happy here.” There were enough staff to cover all care visits and people said that they had enough time with care staff and their calls were never missed.

People were supported to maintain their health and had assistance to access health care services when they needed to. Staff supported people by arranging healthcare appointments for them. A community health professional told us that when carers had concerns about people’s health they were contacted appropriately. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act [2005] and where people lacked capacity we saw appropriate assessments were made and were decision specific.

People told us the staff were kind and caring and they were happy with the service they received. People were involved in developing

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was safe.

The provider had policies and procedures on safeguarding people from possible abuse and neglect. Staff knew how to recognise the signs and they knew what to do if they suspected any abuse had occurred.

Risks to people were assessed and recorded so staff knew how to keep people safe.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people�s needs.

People received their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received an induction when they started work and were trained in relevant areas.

Consent to care and treatment was sought by staff on a daily basis, and staff understood their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and could exercise choice.

People were supported access other health care services.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that knew them well and understood what was important to them.

People were included in making decisions about their care, and they received their care at times that were convenient for them.

Staff supported people to maintain their independence and promoted people�s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans and risk assessments provided guidance on how people needs were to be met, and reflected their preferences and choices.

Staff stayed for the allocated time of the visit and people said they never felt rushed.

People knew how to complain and felt comfortable to do so and said their concerns were addressed.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Systems and processes for monitoring the quality of the service were not always effective in identifying shortfalls and inconsistencies. This was recognised by the provider who had taken steps to address these issues.

There was new management in place that provided clear leadership and staff knew what was expected of them.

There was good communication where staff felt comfortable to raise any issues or suggestions.