The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Community Reablement and Response Services

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Electrium Point, Forge Road, Willenhall, Walsall, WV12 4HD (01922) 658382

Provided and run by:
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

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

All Inspections

22 July 2014

During a routine inspection

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The inspection was announced. We told the provider two working days before our visit that we would be coming.

The service did not have a registered manager in post even though there is a requirement for them to have one. The provider is currently recruiting for this role. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Community Reablement and Response Services is a domiciliary care service providing short term reablement support to people within the community. People who are referred can use the service for up to six weeks to help them regain skills and independence lost through illness, injury or surgery.

At the time of our inspection the service provided support to 189 people and employed over 100 staff.

Feedback from people’s experience of the service had not been actively sought to help develop the service. We also received feedback from people that the service was not aware of. Some people were not aware of the arrangements with their visits.

We found that although incidents were monitored and responded to in a timely manner there was no record of whether the actions taken had reduced the risk and how effective the actions had been.

Some staff did not have up to date training. Most staff had not undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005), although this training was booked. The Mental Capacity Act is a law that protects people who are unable to make their own decisions. Staff understood how to support people to make their own decisions but had limited or no knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act or how it would apply to people they supported.

When we spoke with people and their families they provided positive feedback about the quality of support provided by the service.

Systems were in place to ensure that when people were referred to the service their needs were assessed and reablement support was started quickly. Support provided was individual to each person and focused on reablement goals identified during their assessment. These goals were reviewed and updated every two weeks or as required, if sooner. Staff were provided with information which gave clear instruction on people’s goals and how they were to support them safely to achieve their goals.

Staff were passionate about their roles. They spoke with pride about the service they provided in helping people regain their independence.

The service had good links with other teams within Walsall council and also outside organisations. We saw evidence of partnership working which was helping to drive improvements to the service they provided to people.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

31 October 2013

During a routine inspection

A restructure of the service had recently taken place. A new operating model was in place and the service had been renamed as the community intermediate care team.

We spoke with two members of staff, four people who used the service and a relative of a person who received care and support. Everyone spoke positively about the support they had received. One person said: 'I cannot fault the service'. Another person said: 'The staff were lovely, I do not know what I would have done without their help'. We spoke with the interim manager, service manager and two members of staff.

We looked at ten care records. Every person had an individual reablement plan. This is a type of care plan that's aim is to help people regain and retain their independence. People or family members had signed the reablement plans to record their consent. This meant that people's care was planned and delivered in a way they wanted.

People's needs were assessed and personalised reablement plans developed. Copies of these documents were held in the person's home. This meant that staff had access to the information they required to meet the person's needs.

We saw individual health and safety risk assessments were in place. Staff risk assessed equipment prior to people using it and any concerns about equipment were reported to the office for appropriate action. This meant that people were protected from the use of unsafe equipment.

We found that staff were appropriately supported. Staff had received training through the year and further training in manual handling was planned. This meant that staff had the skills to meet people's needs.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Quality audits were undertaken and action taken to learn from issues identified. One person said that they had been asked by the provider about the service they had received. This ensured that people received a quality service.

31 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people and a relative who received a service from the Community Reablement and Response Team. Everyone spoke positively about the staff that visited them in their home. Care staff working for this service were called 'Reablement Officers'. As far as possible this title is used throughout the report. All people said that staff spoke to them in a respectful way. People told us that the staff supported them in a way that made sure their privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People told us that they were happy with the support they received and that it made a difference to their everyday life. Two people expressed concerns that staff arrived late. One of these people told us that they had a different care worker each day. The second person said, 'You rarely get the same one twice'. We found that the service had acknowledged these concerns and there were plans to address them.

We spoke with two members of staff who were involved in providing care and support to people in their homes. We found that staff were aware of and able to discuss people's care needs.

We spoke with the service manager, three acting team managers and the development services manager during our visit to the officer. All were very accommodating and positive during our visit. They told us about how the service had developed. The managers told us that through continuous monitoring of the service further changes were planned.