Archived: West Sussex Domiciliary Care Services

Updated 26 April 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their area of expertise was older people and people with dementia.

Service and service type:

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults, and younger disabled adults. This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented or purchased and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

People using the service lived in flats and bungalows across two sites in Burgess Hill and Lindfield, West Sussex. Not everyone using West Sussex Domiciliary Care Services receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed information we had received about the service. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Inspection site visit activity took place on 5 March 2019. We visited the office location to see the registered manager and other staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. We visited some people in their homes, spoke to people in the communal areas of one location and spoke with people on the telephone.

During the inspection

• We spoke with 11 people receiving support from the service and one relative.

• We spoke with eight members of staff, and the registered manager.

• We looked at eight people's care records.

• We looked at how medicines were administered and looked at medicine records.

• We looked at records of accidents, incidents and complaints and safeguarding information.

• We looked at audits and quality assurance records.

• We looked at four staff files, training records and rotas.

Updated 26 April 2019

About the service: West Sussex Domiciliary Care Services provides personal care and support to people living in Extra Care Housing, across two sites, in Burgess Hill and Lindfield. The service supports older people and younger people with physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection 45 people were receiving a service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were receiving a good service, more information is in the full report.

• The provider had not fully implemented the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). This meant that the information and communication support needs of people were not always identified, recorded, flagged and shared. Staff knew the people they were supporting well and the registered manager took immediate steps to address this shortfall. We did not judge that there had been a negative impact on the care people received and have identified this as an area of practice that needs to improve.

• People were receiving a personalised service. Staff knew people well and provided person centred care that was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. One person told us, “The care is fantastic.” People were supported to follow their interests and to join in with social events organised within the extra care scheme. Any complaints were responded to quickly and people were confident that their concerns would be addressed. People were supported with end of life care.

• Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding people and people told us they felt safe. One person said, “I have no worries because I know the carers would help me.” Risks to people had been assessed and care plans guided staff in how to support people safely. There were enough staff to cover all the care visits. People said that staff were punctual and stayed for the time they expected. Medicines were administered safely. Incidents and accidents were recorded and monitored.

• Staff received the training and support they needed. People told us they had confidence in the skills of the staff. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and to have access to health care services. Staff understood their responsibilities to comply with the Mental Capacity Act. People’s needs had been assessed and their views and choices were considered when developing care and support plans. Staff described effective systems for communication.

• People were supported by staff who knew them well. They told us that staff treated them kindly, with respect and compassion. One person commented, “Everyone is kind and considerate.” People’s independence was promoted and there were effective systems to maintain confidentiality and protect their privacy. Staff told us they had time to support people with their care and to make decisions. People said they were never rushed. A relative told us, “I think the care is amazing, they really care about my relation.”

• People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the management of the service. They described a well managed, supportive service with visible managers who were approachable. People told us the service had improved and they were happy with the care they received. There were effective systems in place to monitor quality and the registered manager used this information to drive improvements and to enhance people’s quality of life.

Rating at last inspection: This service was registered with CQC on 12 April 2018. This was the first inspection since the service became registered.

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection.

Follow up: Ongoing monitoring.