Background to this inspection
Updated
13 March 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 visit took place on 1 February 2018 with telephone calls to people using the service carried out from 30 January to 7 February 2018.
The inspection team included one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. During this inspection, the expert by experience conducted telephone interviews with people who used the service. We sent out paper questionnaires and received 19 from people who used the service 19 from care staff and seven from health and social care professionals.
Before the inspection, we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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 also reviewed information we held including safeguarding information and notifications made to the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.
We contacted local community NHS teams and adult social care teams to seek their views on the service. We used a planning tool to collate all this evidence and information prior to visiting the home.
We spoke with 14 people who used the service and eight relatives. We also spoke with 5 members of staff including managers, team leaders, support workers and the services occupational therapist.
We looked at records and associated documentation relating to the service including four care and support plans, medicines records, a variety of policies and procedures, quality assurance records and the service review plan.
Updated
13 March 2018
The inspection visit took place on 1 February 2018, with telephone calls to people using the service carried out from 30 January to 7 February 2018. This was the first inspection of the service.
Cumbria Care Reablement Service – Kendal is operated and managed by Cumbria County Council. The reablement service provides flexible support from a few days up to approximately 6 weeks for people living in the community. Its primary aims are to: promote independence so that people can remain living in their own home; help people recover faster from illness; prevent unnecessary admission to hospital and long term care facilities and to support safe hospital discharges. The service had two dedicated occupational therapist and an outreach team based in Lancaster Royal Infirmary and Furness General Hospital in Barrow-in-Furness. At the time of the inspection 120 people were using 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.
We found that the service successfully focussed on providing support that enabled people to become more independent. People told us that the service had a positive impact on their physical and mental well-being.
People were fully involved in completing an initial assessment and the planning of their care and support. People's support plans set realistic goals and were very regularly reviewed. As these goals were met new ones set to ensure people continued to progress.
Staff were well trained, skilled, knowledgeable in supporting people with range of support, health and social needs, such as supporting people living with dementia, people with a physical impairment and as well as offering support to people at the end of their life. Where support with medicines was part of an assessed support need, these were managed appropriately and staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records.
The service had appropriate systems and procedures in place which sought to protect people who used the service from abuse. Staff demonstrated a working knowledge of local safeguarding procedures and how to raise a concern.
Recruitment and selection of staff was robust with safe recruitment practices in place. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to ensure potential employees were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
Accidents, incidents and risks were appropriately recorded and included details of preventive strategies used by the service to reduce the likelihood of events occurring in the future.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Services were delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff sought consent prior to providing care and offered people choices to encourage people to make their own decisions.
Staff were very well motivated, passionate and enthused about helping people to become as independent as they were able. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and were skilled in promoting their independence.
People received information which detailed the complaints procedure. They told us they were confident that if they were required to make a complaint, the management would respond and resolve their issue promptly.
The culture of the service was positive, person centred, forward thinking and inclusive. There was a strong ethos centred on effective partnership and excellent working relationships had been forged with other community health and social care professionals.
The service was very well led by the registered manager who was keen to employ innovative ways of working to develop the service. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to people which ensured good governance.