We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sunderland Community Support Service 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 Sunderland Community Support Service, you can give feedback on this service.
Sunderland Community Support Service provides a reablement and short-term support service to people in their own homes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, only the short-term support service was being provided at the time of our inspection. 75 people were using the service, all of them were receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Comprehensive assessments of people’s needs were carried out before they started using the service. Staff were fully supported in their role. People and family members told us staff were appropriately trained and skilled. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff supported people with their healthcare needs and worked closely with healthcare professionals.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the service to make sure they delivered a high standard of care. People and family members spoke positively about the quality of the service. Staff said they were comfortable raising any concerns and the management team were approachable. The registered manager had identified and implemented improvements to the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 23 April 2019). At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those Key Questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sunderland Community Support Service on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
People’s experience of using this service: People told us they were happy with the service. Many people told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate. One person told us, “Kindness and support, staff treat me humanely, nothing but respect and care.”
The service mostly demonstrated the principles of Registering the Right Support, promoting choice and independence and involving people in the wider community. However, we found the principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not always adhered to.
People were supported by a constant staff team. The service ensured staff had the appropriate skills and experience to support people safely and in a person-centred way. Learning opportunities were available and staff were encouraged to develop.
Staff had extensive knowledge of safeguarding and were passionate about keeping people safe.
Safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and health and safety matters were investigated and looked in to, with any lessons learnt cascaded throughout the service.
People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and were complimentary about the care provided.
People received their medicines in a safe way and as they preferred.
People were supported to make decisions about the care they received. The provider offered people several ways to raise their concerns.
The provider encouraged people to be involved in all aspects of the service. The service regularly sought feedback from people using the service and used the information to develop.
A detailed assessment was completed before people joined the service and care plans were developed with people. Where appropriate, people were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health. The service was responsive to people’s health care needs and had strong partnerships with healthcare services.
People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and were complimentary about the care provided.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 1 September 2016).
Why we inspected: This inspection was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Sunderland Community Support Service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes who have been in hospital or require support due to a decline in their health. The service lasts up to approximately six weeks and focuses on assisting people to regain daily living skills, mobility and confidence living at home. At the time of the inspection 150 people were receiving support from the service.
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 said they were happy with their care and support they received. One person said, “They’re (staff) pleasant and polite. They really look after you.” Another person said, “Oh yes, they’re all nice girls. Before they go they always ask if there’s anything else they can do for me.” People told us staff were respectful of their wishes when providing support. People were supported to be as independent as possible in line with their goal plans.
People had risk assessments in place and associated care plans were clearly linked and updated in line with risk assessment reviews.
Medicines were managed effectively with people receiving their medicines appropriately. All records were complete and up to date with regular medicine audits being carried out.
Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and were confident in their role of safeguarding people. Any safeguarding concerns were investigated with the outcomes fed back and practices changed if necessary in order to prevent reoccurrences. Staff were aware of the registered provider’s whistle blowing procedure and told us they felt comfortable raising issues with management.
Accidents and incidents were recorded with details of any action taken to deal with the issue.
Staffing requirements were assessed in line with people’s support needs. Staffing rotas were consistent and staffing cover was provided by existing staff. Staff were recruited in a safe and consistent manner with all necessary checks carried out.
Staff had up to date training and regular direct observations of staff practices were carried out as part of the supervision process. Staff received annual appraisals.
People were supported to access services from a range of health care professionals when required. These included doctors and occupational therapists.
People were supported to meet their nutritional needs, including when they had special dietary needs.
People's care plans were detailed, personalised, up to date and reflected current needs. Staff used them as a guide to deliver support to people in line with their choices and personal preferences.
People told us they knew how to raise concerns and would feel comfortable in doing so. They were complimentary about the service and told us they never had any problems or complaints with the service and were happy with everything.
Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. They told us management were “very, very good”. They told us management were very approachable and communication was open, honest and transparent.
The management team carried out a range of regular audits related to the service provided, as well as the quality of support plans and information recorded by staff.