Surrey Hills Home Help Services Limited

Updated 24 January 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 checked 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.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

Inspection activity started on 13 November 2017 and ended on 14 November 2017. One inspector carried out this inspection. It included visiting the site office, visiting people in their homes with the registered manager present and speaking to people and their relatives on the phone which we did on 13 November. We visited the office location on 14 November 2017 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. Not everyone using Surrey hills received personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’: help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Prior to this inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including data about safeguarding and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. Before the inspection, the provider completed a 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.

As part of the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the administration assistant, a senior carer, one carer, four people using the service and three people’s relatives. As some people who received a care package from Surrey hills were not able to tell us about their experiences, we observed the support being provided. We looked at a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. We looked at four people’s care plans, medication administration records, risk assessments, moving and handling assessments, four staff files, accident and incident records, complaints records and quality audits that had been completed.

Surrey Hills Home Help Services Limited has not been inspected by CQC before.

Updated 24 January 2018

The inspection took place on 14 November 2017. The inspection was announced. The provider was given two working days’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the locations office to see us. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. There were eight people using the service who were receiving personal care at the time of the inspection. Surrey Hills are a domiciliary care agency based in Edenbridge who are registered to provide personal care to people living with dementia, older people, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health, people with an eating disorder, physical disability, sensory impairment and younger adults. Surrey Hills Home Help Services Limited will be referred to in this report as Surrey Hills. Surrey Hills was registered with CQC in November 2016 and had not been inspected prior to this inspection.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager at the service. 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 were kept safe from abuse and harm and staff knew how to report concerns about abuse. Risks were minimised through the use of effective control measures to keep people safe whilst promoting their independence. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs and ensure their safety. People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who had been trained and had their competence checked. Staff understood the best practice procedures for reducing the risk of infection and carried a bag of protective equipment such as hand gel and shoe protectors on every care call. The service used incidents, accidents and near misses to learn from mistakes and drive improvements.

People had effective assessments of their needs prior to a service being offered. This meant that care outcomes were planned and staff understood what support each person required. Staff were trained in key areas and had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. People were supported to receive enough to eat and drink; staff used food and fluid charts to record intake for people at risk or malnourishment or dehydration.

The service worked in collaboration with other professionals such as district nursing and people’s GP’s to ensure care was effectively delivered. People maintained good health and had access to health and social care professionals. Environments were risk assessed to ensure people were safe in their homes and staff could work without the risk of danger. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were being complied with and any restrictions were assessed to ensure they were lawful and the least restrictive option.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion in their day to day care. Staff knew people’s needs well and people told us they valued and liked their care staff. People and their relatives were consulted around their care and support and their views were acted upon. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and upheld and staff encouraged people to be as independent as safely possible.

People received a person centred service that was supportive of their needs. People’s needs were fully assessed and care plans ensured that personal details were carried through to care delivery. There was a complaints policy and form, though no complaints had yet been received. Staff were open to any complaints and understood that responding to people’s concerns was a part of good care. End of life care had been planned for people who wished to do so. The service worked with local hospices to implement their own end of life care policy and ensure people had a dignified death in the manner of their choosing.

There was an open and inclusive culture that was implemented by effective leadership from the registered manager. People and staff spoke of a ‘family’ care company that was small but caring. The registered manager had ensured that audits of quality were effective in highlighting and remedying shortfalls and the registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities. People, their families and staff members were engaged in the running of the service. There was a culture of learning from best practice and of working collaboratively with other professionals and health providers to ensure partnership working resulted in good outcomes for people.