This was an announced inspection that took place 28 and 29 June 2016.Alzheimer’s and Dementia Support Services is a registered charity. Their Support at Home Plus service provides personal care and support to adults living with dementia and those who care for them in their own homes in the Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley areas. The service provides support to enable individuals to live as independently as possible. At the time of our inspection 55 people were using the service. The main office is located in Northfleet, Kent.
There was not a registered manager in post. 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.
The previous registered manager had left 3 weeks prior to inspection and had started the process to de-register with the CQC. Interim management cover had been put in place and support was being provided by the operations manager and chief executive officer. A new manager was being recruited and shortlisting for the post was due to start the week following the inspection. The chief executive officer told us that the newly appointed manager would be registering with CQC as soon as they had completed their initial induction and training.
People were referred to health care professionals when needed and in a timely way. Personal records included people’s individual care plans, likes and dislikes and preferred activities. The staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to do as much as possible for themselves.
Staff sought and obtained people’s consent before they provided support. Relatives told us that staff communicated effectively with the people they cared for, responded to their needs promptly and treated them with kindness and respect. People and their relatives were satisfied with how their support was delivered.
People’s privacy was respected and people were supported in a way that respected their dignity and independence. People received the support they required to ensure they had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing.
Policies and procedures were available for staff to support practice. There was a whistle blowing policy and staff were aware of their responsibility to report any bad practice.
There were robust recruitment practises in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people. Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to report any concerns.
Staff had completed the training they needed to care for people in a safe way. They had the opportunity to receive further training specific to the needs of the people they supported.
Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual. They included clear measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow to make sure people were protected from harm. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how risks of recurrence could be reduced.
People’s individual assessments and care plans were reviewed regularly with their participation. People’s care plans were updated when their needs changed to make sure they received the support they needed.
All members of care staff received one to one supervision sessions to ensure they were supporting people based on their needs. Staff told us they felt valued under the leadership of the chief executive officer and operations manager. However annual appraisals had not taken place, a new appraisal system was scheduled to start in October. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.
Medicines were stored, managed and administered to people in a safe way. There was regular auditing of medicines and staff competencies were checked to ensure standards were maintained.
The provider sought and obtained feedback from people and their relatives on the quality of the service. People and their relatives had access to the complaints procedure and knew how to make a complaint. The provider analysed the results and acted upon the comments they received.
The chief executive officer and operations manager notified the Care Quality Commission of any significant events that affected people or the service. Quality assurance audits were carried out to identify how the service could improve and remedial action was taken when necessary.