Assessment and Enablement Team

Updated 2 May 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:

An inspector and an expert by experience carried out the inspection. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type:

Assessment and Enablement Team is a domiciliary care agency. It provides care and support to people living in their own houses, flats or specialist housing. The service provides personal care and support to adults.

Not everyone using 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:

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection site visit because the manager is also responsible for managing two other services owned by the provider. They are often out of the office and we needed to be sure they would be in to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 26 March 2019 and ended on 29 March 2019. We visited the office location on 26 March 2019 to see the manager and office staff; speak with care staff; and to review care records, and policies and procedures.

What we did:

Before the inspection, we looked at information we held about the service including notifications. A notification is information about events that registered persons are required to tell us about. We checked the 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. We used this information to plan the inspection

During the inspection, we looked at various information including:

¿ Care records for three people.

¿ Records of accidents and incidents; compliments and complaints; audits; surveys.

¿ Four staff files to check the provider's staff recruitment, training and supervision processes.

¿ Some of the provider’s policies and procedures.

During the office visit, we spoke with the registered manager, the coordinator, the hospital coordinator, the administrator and five care staff. We also spoke with a professional who worked closely with the service.

We spoke by telephone with seven people using the service and six relatives of other people.

Updated 2 May 2019

About the service:

Assessment and Enablement Team is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care and support to people living in their own houses, flats or specialist housing in the community. The service mainly provides short-term care to adults who require a period of support following a stay in hospital due to ill-health, surgery or an injury. At the time of the inspection, 28 people were being supported by the service. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.or.uk.

People’s experience of using this service:

People, relatives and staff told us the service was very good at providing good care in a caring and responsive manner. Feedback from everyone was positive about how the manager and staff supported people in a kind and person-centred way. Everyone said their needs had been met because of this. There was evidence that the service had been effective in achieving good care outcomes for people. This was because the support provided enabled most people to re-gain their independent living skills. The registered manager and their team also took appropriate action to ensure that people who needed longer term support received this in a timely way.

People were protected from harm by staff who had been trained, and were confident in recognising and reporting concerns. Potential risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and minimised. There were enough staff to ensure people’s needs were met safely. Where required, people were supported well to manage their medicines. Staff followed effective processes to prevent the spread of infection.

Staff had the right skills to meet people's needs effectively. Staff were well supported and had information to meet people’s assessed needs. Where required, staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink. Staff supported people to access healthcare services when urgent care was required. This helped people to maintain their health and well-being.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were fully involved in making decisions about their care and support. People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care plans. People told us staff who supported them were caring and friendly. Staff respected and promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

Information in people's care plans supported staff to deliver person-centred care that met people’s needs. Staff had been trained on how to support people well at the end of their lives. The registered manager worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure people received care that met their needs. There was a system to ensure people’s suggestions and complaints were recorded, investigated, and acted upon to reduce the risk of recurrence. The service did not normally provide end of life care.

Audits and quality monitoring checks were carried out regularly to continually improve the service. The provider had systems to enable people to provide feedback about their experiences of the service. People's experiences of the service were positive. Staff felt fully involved in ensuring the service met its regulatory requirements.

Rating at last inspection:

The service was rated 'good' when we last inspected it. That report was published in March 2016. The service met the characteristics of Good in all five domains and the rating remained the same since the last inspection.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor all information we receive about the service and schedule the next inspection accordingly.