We carried out a review of the data available to us about Assessment and Enablement Team on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Assessment and Enablement Team, you can give feedback on this 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.
This inspection was announced and took place on 25 January 2016.
The service had a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were protected from harm or abuse. Staff received safeguarding training and were prepared to report any concerns they had. There were appropriate systems in place to to ensure incidents were reported and investigated. Risk assessments were in place to help maintain people’s safety, but also to promote their independence. Staffing levels were also designed to meet people’s needs and promote their independent living skills. People were supported to take their medication, and staff encouraged them to be as independent as possible in this area.
Members of staff had regular and on-going training, to ensure they had the skills and knowledge they needed to perform their roles. New staff received a comprehensive induction and all staff had regular supervision meetings to ensure they could raise concerns and discuss their development. People’s consent was sought and they were encouraged to make their own choices, and were supported to do so appropriately. Staff encouraged people to be independent with their food and drink, so that they would be able to to look after themselves after their re-enablement package finished. Similarly, staff supported people to make and attend healthcare appointments, but also encouraged them to do this for themselves.
People were treated with kindness and compassion by members of staff who worked to develop positive and meaningful relationships with them. People and their family members were consulted about their care, and were involved in writing their care plans. There were systems in place to ensure that staff promoted people’s dignity and respect during all their visits.
People’s care was person-centred and specific to their individual needs. Specific goals were put in place to help them re-gain their independence and staff helped them to achieve these goals. There were systems in place to ensure people were given the opportunity to provide the service with feedback or to raise complaints. The service took appropriate action when they received feedback from people.
There was a positive and open culture at the service. The registered manager was a visible presence and was known by staff and people alike. Staff were positive about their roles and felt empowered by the registered manager. Quality assurance systems and processes were in place to help the registered manager monitor and improve the quality of care being provided.
We found that people experienced a service that liaised with other care providers to ensure that the discharge from hospital and the transfer of on going care provision was a smooth process. Where necessary, the care staff sought advice and assistance from healthcare professionals such as district nurses and GPs.
People we spoke with told us that they found the care staff very caring. One person said "I have one word for them. Excellent." Another person told us "They're marvellous." All of the people we spoke with spoke highly of the care staff and the care co-ordinators who managed their care each day. Calls took place as planned and there were sufficient staff to meet the calls taken on by the service.
There was a robust quality assurance system in place with a registered manager responsible for ensuring a quality service was delivered. Audits were shared with senior managers therefore this meant that information was shared with the provider to aid future service development..
Everyone spoke positively about the care they received and without exception people said all the care staff spoke with them in a calm and respectful way. People told us that their privacy and dignity was respected at all times.
People told us their care was personalised to meet their needs and all people we spoke with said they had been involved in the development of their care plan. We were told by people using the service that staff were reliable and always stayed as long as they were needed.
People felt staff were well trained and understood their needs. They said they felt safe and if they had concerns they would speak with a family member, friends or somebody in the office. We were told that people were treated with respect and consideration. They were able to express their views and talk about the care and support they needed.