Assist Teignbridge

Updated 19 July 2018

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 inspection took place on 21 and 26 June 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection of the inspection visit to ensure we were able to speak with the registered manager. Inspection site visit included phone calls to people who used the service.

One social care inspector undertook the inspection. Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service and received feedback from one relative. We spoke with the registered manager, two staff and one healthcare professional.

We looked at four care plans; three staff files; staff training and supervision records; quality audits and records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 19 July 2018

Assist Teignbridge is charity which provides care and support to people who live in their own homes.

Not everyone using Assist Teignbridge was receiving a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’. This includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene, eating and in the case of Assist Teignbridge, cutting nails. At the time of this inspection, 254 people were using the nail cutting service. These visits were carried out every six to eight weeks, on average. Six people were receiving support with other personal care.

At our last inspection in July 2016, we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People who used the service felt safe. People knew the staff who supported them and arranged their care and support directly with them. There were effective recruitment and selection processes for new staff. This included carrying out checks to make sure new staff were safe to work with the people in the community. Staff carried out a new risk assessment at each visit. They checked whether the person’s medical condition had changed to ensure they were still able to meet the person’s needs.

People received effective care because staff had the skills and knowledge required to support them. In addition to home visits, the service held a nail cutting clinic at the location every other month. Staff monitored people's healthcare needs and advice and support was sought from healthcare professionals when needed. 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.

Staff provided a caring service to people. People spoke very highly of the care and support they received. Comments included "Staff are lovely, we talk laugh and joke” and “I don’t know what I’d do without them.” Staff signposted people to other organisations for external support, if this was beyond the support the agency could provide.

Staff were responsive to people's individual needs. Care needs were assessed and planned with each person to ensure they were able to make choices. People were offered the opportunity to attend events in the local community and benefited from social contact. People knew they could raise any concerns with staff or the registered manager. Each person we spoke with told us they were happy with everything and didn't need to complain.

The service was well led. People and staff told us the management team were open and approachable. The registered manager sought people's views. Comments included “I’m very happy with the way things are” and “5 stars, full marks”. The registered manager and provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practice and areas of improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.