Background to this inspection
Updated
23 April 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 01 and 02 March 2016 and was announced. We provided 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure management were available to facilitate our inspection. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission.
We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We reviewed information we held about the service in the form of statutory notifications received from the service and any safeguarding or whistleblowing incidents which may have occurred. We also liaised with the local authority that commissioned the service to obtain their views about the service.
We spoke with three people who used the service over the telephone, in order to gain their views about the quality of the service provided. We also spoke with three relatives over the telephone and met face to face with eight staff members to determine their views of service delivery.
Staff we spoke with included the registered manager, two supervisors, one re-ablement support worker and four support workers.
We looked at five people’s care records to see if their records were accurate and reflected their re-ablement needs. We reviewed five staff recruitment files, two weeks of staff duty rotas, staff training records and further records relating to the management of the service, including quality audits and health and safety checks.
Start this section with the following sentence:
Updated
23 April 2016
This inspection took place on 01 and 02 March 2016 and was announced.
This was the first comprehensive inspection carried out at Daventry/South Northants START since the service was last inspected on 09 October 2013, where they were assessed as meeting all the regulations.
The Daventry/South Northants START service is a re-ablement service for people to manage independently at home following discharge from hospital. It provides short-term intensive support for people to work towards independence. This service is provided for a maximum of six weeks. There were 28 people using this service when we visited.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to use the whistleblowing procedure. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and any potential risks to people had been identified. We saw that risk management plans had been completed to enable them to live as safely and independently as possible. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. The provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place and carried out checks when they employed staff to help ensure people were safe. People told us they met staff before they worked with them.
People had their medicines managed safely, and received their medicines in a way they chose and preferred. The registered manager and staff had given much consideration about how they could support and encourage people to manage their medicines independently and safely.
Staff were well trained and aspects of training were used regularly when planning care and supporting people with their care and support needs. People told us and records confirmed that all of the staff received regular training in mandatory subjects. In addition, we saw that specialist training specific to the needs of people using the service had been completed. This had provided staff with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in an effective and individualised way. People told us they were mainly responsible for their own food provision. However if they required support then this was provided. People who received this support said they received meals of their choice and they said their food was varied. People could be supported to attend appointments with various health and social care professionals if required.
The staff team were passionate about providing a service that placed people and their families at the very heart of their care. We found a progressive, extremely caring and highly positive atmosphere throughout the service and within the delivery of care provided by staff. People and their relatives were placed firmly at the heart of the re-ablement pathway. All aspects of peoples care; recovery and re-ablement needs were focused on them, their personal goals and their re-ablement goals. Without exception, people and relatives praised the staff for their caring, compassionate and professional approach. Everyone we spoke with said that staff went over and beyond what was expected of them and they were like family. Staff were exceptional in enabling people to become independent and re-gain lost skills.
People received care that was responsive to their needs and centred on them as individuals. Their needs were assessed and care plans gave clear guidance on how they were to be supported. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and review of their care. People were able to express their opinions and views and were encouraged and supported to have their voice heard. Staff listened and respected people’s views about the way they wanted their care and support to be delivered. Staff were passionate about their work and driven by a desire to provide high quality care. They were flexible and adaptable, ensuring that people participated in their own care and achieved their full potential. The service had an effective complaints procedure in place and we saw appropriate systems for responding to any complaints the service received. Staff were responsive to people’s worries, anxieties and concerns and acted promptly to resolve them.
There was an extremely positive culture within the service, the registered manager provided strong leadership and led by example. They had clear visions, values and enthusiasm about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were shared with the whole staff team. Staff had clearly adopted the same ethos and enthusiasm and this showed in the way they spoke about their role and how they cared for people. Individualised care was central to the philosophy of the service and staff demonstrated they understood and practiced this by talking to us about how they met people’s care and support needs. They spoke with commitment and were passionate when they talked about people they supported.
Staff attended regular meetings, which gave them an opportunity to share ideas, and exchange information about possible areas for improvements to the registered manager. Ideas for change were welcomed, and used to drive improvements and make positive changes for people. Quality monitoring systems and processes were used robustly to make positive changes, drive future improvement and identify where action needed to be taken. All staff, irrespective of their role, wanted standards of care to remain high and so used the outcome of audit checks and quality questionnaires to enable them to provide excellent quality care.