Archived: Rutland County Council

Rutland County Council Reach service is a domiciliary care agency that offers personal support and care to people in their own homes. This is provided to support people back to being as independent as they are able and work with other agencies to achieve this goal. At the time of this inspection the service was providing services to 13 people in the local area.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe when staff provided any assistance.

The registered manager had assessed the risks associated with providing support and care in the person's own home environment This supported the safety of the person receiving the service as well as members of staff. Any incidents or accidents were fully analysed to develop strategies to prevent an incident reoccurring.

.

Staff had undergone relevant employment checks. They also understood how to keep people safe and report any concerns if needed.

Staff had received training and supervision to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff told us that they felt supported by senior staff, by the manager and the team in general. Their competencies to undertake their specific work role was regularly assessed. Training included the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to maintain their health and independence. People's health needs were monitored and when necessary, outside health professionals were contacted for support.

People were treated with kindness and respect. People's independence was promoted and staff supported people to have sufficient to eat and drink.

The registered manager had assessed the care needs of people before any support package was agreed. People were involved in the planning of their support and care and their feedback was sought.

People told us that they were given information about making a complaint and that there was always someone to talk when they telephoned.

The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. There were also review systems and spot checks that were completed regularly.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected. One person said 'The staff had lots of time for me and never rushed, they helped me to do as much for myself as I could'.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Staff knew about risk management plans and told us about how they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that people's medicines were managed in a safe way.

The provider ensured that staff rotas where planned so that people's care needs were taken into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met. People had their needs assessed before they began using the service. People's needs were assessed by experienced staff.

Staff recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People were involved in setting goals and this was reviewed weekly. The provider employed a physiotherapist and occupational therapist.

People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.

One person said 'I was surprised and overwhelmed by the amount of attention that was given to me'.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with four people who used the service. We asked them for their opinion about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'They were really good and very caring, we became good friends'. 'All the staff were lovely, all of them were very nice and helpful'.

When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported. They were proud about how they had helped people to regain their independence.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People told us they could contact the agency at any time and had their care and support needs reviewed weekly.

At the time of our visit there was no one from an ethnic minority community using the service. Staff told us about a person whose first language was not English who would potentially be using the service. They told us they were in the process of arranging translation services and finding out about the person's religious and cultural needs. They told us that written information could be translated into other languages.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way. There was a dedicated review officer (social worker) responsible for reviewing peoples care packages and ensuring that the transfer of care to other providers met people's individual needs and was as seamless as possible.

Is the service well led?

The provider had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

People who used the service were involved in the care and assessment process. The provider cooperated with other providers and ensured a comprehensive handover took place. Staff were knowledgable about what to do if they suspected abuse and how to protect people from abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust. Staff had the skills and experience they required to meet peoples needs.