Selby Reablement Service

Updated 14 November 2017

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. This was a comprehensive inspection.

The inspection of Selby & District Branch (Domiciliary Care Services) took place on 11 September 2017 and was announced. An adult social care inspector and an assistant inspector carried out the visit. Information had been gathered before the inspection from notifications that had been sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur.

We also reviewed information from people who had contacted CQC to make their views known about the service. We received a ‘provider information return’ (PIR) from the registered provider. A PIR 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 visited two people that used the service and spoke with two people on the telephone. We also spoke with the registered manager and two staff that worked at Selby & District Branch (Domiciliary Care Services). We looked at care files and ‘Independence Plans’ for three people that used the service and at recruitment files and training records for four staff. We viewed records and documentation relating to the running of the service, including the quality assurance and monitoring systems and people’s home environment safety assessments. We also looked at records held in respect of safeguarding referrals, complaints and compliments.

Updated 14 November 2017

Selby & District Branch (Domiciliary Care Services) provides personal care in people's own homes. It offers people a programme of short term support for up to six weeks to assist them to regain their independence after an accident, illness, or temporary disability. Since a restructure of the service took place in April 2017, reablement workers (also staff in the report) no longer have a dual role supporting people who live in two extra care housing establishments. These are soon to be registered services in their own right. The service is available to people who live in Selby and the surrounding villages and who may or may not have other care or support needs.

At the last inspection in August 2015 the service was rated ‘Good’.

This inspection of Selby & District Branch (Domiciliary Care Services) took place on 11 September 2017. There were approximately 17 people receiving the service at the time. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

The registered provider was required to have a registered manager in post. The manager had been registered for the last three and a half months. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like 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 that used the service were protected from the risk of harm by the provider’s systems regarding safeguarding adults. Staff were trained in safeguarding principles and policies and understood their responsibilities. Risks were appropriately removed so that people avoided injury or harm.

The location premises were safely maintained and people’s environments were checked for safety to people and staff, before a package of care was provided. Staffing numbers met people’s needs and provided people with the support they required to recoup from illness or injury. Where further or long-term support was needed people were referred to another service provider. Recruitment of staff followed safe systems to ensure they were suitable. Safe support was given to people, where required, with the management of medicines.

Staff were trained, qualified and their competence was assessed. They received regular supervision and their personal performance was checked at an annual appraisal. Communication was effective.

People’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected. 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.

Minimal support was provided to people with nutrition, hydration and health care needs, as the aim of the service was to rehabilitate people into independent living following illness or injury.

People told us that staff were caring and extremely helpful and everyone said they wished the service could continue. People were supplied with any information they needed, were fully involved in their care and asked for their consent before staff began to support them with any tasks or care needs. Staff showed respect to people with regard to their wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence.

People had person-centred support plans in place, which reflected their rehabilitation needs. These were for short-term use and were usually passed over to other service providers if it was assessed that people required longer-term care. All support to people was designed to aid them to become independent once again. A complaint system was available but rarely used because people had no complaints to raise.

The service was well-led. The culture was enabling and the management style was positive. A council-wide system was in place for checking the quality of the service using audits and satisfaction surveys. People’s privacy and confidentiality were maintained with regards to information and records were held securely on the premises.