Archived: Seeability Surrey Support Service

Updated 7 November 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.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because there are multiple locations and we needed to be sure that the manager would be in. The inspection was completed by one inspector.

With permission we visited the two supported living houses. We visited the office location on 3 October 2018 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records, training records, quality assurance and policies and procedures.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make

We spoke to four people, two relatives and five staff members including the registered manager and the quality and compliance manager. We looked at three care plans and three staff files. We checked the complaints log, accident/incident records and surveys completed by people who used the service. We also checked quality monitoring audits and records of spot checks on staff.

Updated 7 November 2018

Seeability Surrey Support Service is a domiciliary care agency and supported living service which provides supports to 11 people. The people who use this service live at two houses and are supported to live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

People supported by the service had varying degrees of sight loss, learning disabilities and physical disabilities. The service provided a waking night and sleep in where appropriate for each home. People had varied communication needs and abilities. Some people were able to express themselves verbally; others used body language to communicate their needs. Some of the people's health needs and behaviour presented challenges and was responded to with one to one support from staff.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The inspection took place on 3 October 2018 and was announced. 48 hours' notice of the inspection was given because we needed to be sure that the registered manager was available as they manage two services in different locations.

The service was run by a registered manager, who was present on the day of the inspection visit. 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.

Why the service is rated Good.

Policies, procedures and staff training were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff had identified risks to people and these were managed safely. People were protected from the risk of infection. Recruitment processes were followed to ensure suitable staff worked at the service. Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people’s safety. Arrangements were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely and securely.

People were cared for by staff who had received comprehensive training, support and supervision in their role. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to eat and drink sufficiently for their needs. Staff supported people to see a range of healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health and wellbeing.

Risks to people’s safety were identified and action taken to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and measures implemented to reduce the risk of them happening again. People’s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency as there were contingency plans in place and people were made aware of fire procedures.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were respected. Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care and how people communicated their decisions. The provider had supported safeguarding to make applications for deprivation of liberty orders where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe.

Staff treated people with kindness. Staff supported people to make choices about their lives. Staff treated people with respect and upheld their dignity and human rights when delivering their care. People had a comprehensive assessment of their support needs and guidelines were produced for staff about how to meet people’s individual needs and preferences. Support plans were reviewed with people and their families and relevant changes made where needed. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. Staff encouraged people to connect with their local community on a daily basis.

Processes were in place to enable people to make complaints. The provider had effective governance processes in place. People, their families, staff and professionals were encouraged to be actively involved in the development and continuous improvement of the home. People benefitted from living in a well organised, forward thinking service where their needs were always at the centre. The culture of the service was open and people felt confident to express their views and opinions. The registered manager provided clear leadership and direction to staff and were committed and passionate about providing high quality services to people.

The provider had robust quality assurance systems which operated across all levels of the service. Staff had worked effectively in partnership with other agencies such as social workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, GP's, and pharmacies to promote positive outcomes for people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.