Archived: Haringey Community Reablement Service

Updated 30 December 2014

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before our inspection, we reviewed the information included in the PIR along with information we held about the service. The service met the regulations we inspected against at their last inspection on 16 January 2014. We also reviewed the results of questionnaires we had sent out. 13 people using the service, seven community professionals, and 24 staff members replied to these questionnaires.

We inspected the service on 30 July 2014. This was an announced inspection, which means the provider was informed two working days beforehand to ensure that key members of the management team would be available in the office.

The inspection team consisted of an inspector, a specialist advisor to help consider the care and support of people using a domiciliary care service, 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.

During the inspection visit we spoke with three staff members and the registered manager. We also spent time looking at paper and computer records, which included five people’s support records, and records relating to the management of the service.

Following our visit we asked the manager some further questions and reviewed management records that we had asked the manager to give us during and after the visit. We visited and spoke with two people using the service in their homes with their permission. We also spoke on the telephone to 14 people using the service. This was in order to gain the views of more people about the quality of the service provided.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 30 December 2014

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.

This inspection was announced. We informed the provider two working days beforehand to ensure that key members of the management team would be available.

Haringey Community Reablement Service provides a domiciliary care service to adults of any age in their own homes. The service aims to offer a period of intensive reablement for up to six weeks to help people regain their independence after a period of ill health or hospital stay.

We inspected the service on 30 July 2014. At the time of our visit, the service was providing personal care for approximately 30 people living in the London Borough of Haringey. However, the short-term nature of this reablement service meant that up to 600 people a year used the service.

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 and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Feedback from people using the service and involved community professionals indicated that the service’s aim of supporting people with regaining independence was being achieved. Comments included, “ Overall they were good” and “I cannot praise them highly enough.” Most people felt they would recommend the service to friends and family.

People told us they felt safe when using the service. The service promptly assessed risk to new people using the service, and took action where concerns were identified. Allegations of abuse were responded to appropriately, and the service took action to help protect people and minimise the risk of reoccurrence.           

The service had an established staff team since its inception in 2012. Staff were comprehensively trained when the service began and there was ongoing training. They received good support from the management team. There were enough staff to visit people at their preferred times. This helped to provide support to people with regaining their independence.

People told us that care workers were caring, kind and treated them respectfully. We saw examples of how the service respected and valued people. People were made to feel that they mattered. 

The service listened to people and responded to their views, for example, in acquiring equipment to aid independence and with arranging visits at times requested by people. The service liaised well with community professionals in support of meeting people’s needs.

Most people said they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to, and that the service responded if they had raised concerns. We found that the service investigated complaints well and took action where needed.

Some aspects of the service were well managed. A service development plan was in place in response to the views of people using the service and other stakeholders. The manager had visited the reablement team in a neighbouring local authority, to help develop and share good practice and feed into the development plan.

However, there was a lack of consistency in how well the service was managed and led. For example, there was little oversight of the supervision of individual staff members, or of checks of the quality of their support to people, to ensure that each staff member received effective support and guidance. The provider did not consistently make checks of improvements to the service, to ensure that planned improvements had been effectively implemented. This did not represent a breach of regulations but failed to assure us of a consistently well-led service.