• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Mole Valley Reablement Service Also known as Mole Valley District Council

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ (01737) 737537

Provided and run by:
SCC Adult Social Care

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

2 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Mole Valley Reablement Service provides support for people with daily living skills and personal care for people in their own homes. Support is provided for people for up to six weeks following a period of poor health or a spell in hospital. At the time of our inspection the agency was supporting 49 people with personal care in their own homes.

There was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was present for the duration of the inspection.

Care workers knew how to keep people safe. They understood their responsibilities under safeguarding procedures and told us they would report anything that looked like abuse to the management team who they said would deal with issues immediately.

Staff recruitment procedures were safe and ensured care was provided by staff who were vetted and suitable to support people in their own home. Staff met with their line manager on a one to one basis to discuss their work. Staff said they felt supported to undertake their roles.

The agency had procedures in place to manage medicines safely and ensured only suitably qualified staff administered medicines to people.

Risks of harm to people had been identified, assessed and well managed. Information was provided to staff on how to care for people in order to reduce any risks.

The registered manager logged any accidents and incidents that occurred and put measures in place for staff to follow to mitigate any further accidents or incidents.

People’s consent to care and treatment was considered. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and about people’s capacity to make decisions.

Staff were caring to people and respected their privacy and dignity. People and relatives told us staff were polite and staff said they were always mindful that they were a visitor in people’s homes.

Staff received a good range of training specific to people’s needs. This allowed them to carry out their role in an effective and competent way.

The registered manager undertook quality assurance audits to ensure the care provided was of a standard people should expect. Any areas identified as needing improvement were addressed by the registered manager to drive improvement and provide better services for people.

If an emergency occurred for example adverse weather conditions or an outbreak of staff sickness people’s care would not be interrupted as there were procedures in place to manage this.

A complaints procedure was available for any concerns. This was included in the information pack people were given when they engaged the services of the agency. People knew how to make a complaint but said they never used the formal process and issues got addressed immediately.

We looked at records in the agency’s office relating to the care of people and the management of the service. These included care plans, risk assessments, medicine records, staff recruitment and training files and a range of policies and procedures. These were well maintained and regularly monitored by the registered manager to ensure the quality of record keeping was appropriate.

30 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who were using the reablement service and they all told us how much they appreciated the support provided. Two of the people said that they were regaining their strength after discharge from hospital and that the assistance had enabled them to return home whilst they recovered.

We observed that the staff were providing reassurance and the people said that they were growing in confidence. One person said 'It was so nice to have someone here when I came home. I could not have coped without them.' Another person said 'they have been brilliant, so brilliant'.

We visited the office and spoke with six members of staff, including the manager. The manager said that they had capacity to see a maximum of 50 people at one time and were currently seeing 49. The manager also said that more than 50% were 'enabled' and could manage on their own, and without any additional care services after the reablement period. More than 70% of people were able to manage with a reduced package of care. A member of staff told us that, where there was a need for a longer term 'package of care, we manage the transition through a facilitated handover to the longer term care provider'. The five relatives we spoke with were positive about the quality of care and said 'it is designed to help people get better'. One relative said the service was 'not enough' and 'mother is now in need of constant care.'