Archived: Home Sweet Home Reablement Services

Updated 2 July 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type:

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses, flats and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults.

Not everyone using Home Sweet Home Reablement receives a regulated activity; 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.

As the service provider is an individual registered with the Care Quality Commission, who takes on the role of manager in charge of how the regulated activity is provided day-to-day, they do not need to register as manager. The service provider is legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. The service provider will be referred to as “the manager” throughout this report.

Notice of inspection:

We gave the service 72 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small, and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

Inspection site visit activity started on 18 April 2019 and ended on 26 April 2019. We visited the office location on 18 April 2019 to see the manager; and to review care records and policies and procedures. On 25 April 2019 we made phone calls to people and their relatives being supported in their own homes. On 26 April 2019 we contacted staff and professionals to discuss the service.

What we did:

Before we inspected we reviewed the information we already held about the service. We reviewed the provider information return, (PIR). The PIR is submitted by the provider annually and contains evidence about how the service is performing and developments they intend to make. The PIR helps us to plan our inspection.

We reviewed notifications sent to us by the provider. Notifications are reports about specific events that the provider must tell us about by law.

During the inspection we looked at two staff records, three people's care records, we saw policies and procedures, records of accidents and incidents, compliments and complaints. We looked at quality assurance reports and audits of the service.

We spoke with the provider, three people who used the service and six of their relatives. We also gained feedback from two staff members and four professionals that support the service regularly.

Updated 2 July 2019

About the service:

Home Sweet Home Reablement is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people within their own homes in the seaside town of Leigh on Sea. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 22 older people, only seven of those were receiving support with personal care. As the Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate domestic support, this inspection related only to people receiving the regulated activity of personal care. The aim of the service was to enable people to remain living in their own homes for as long as possible and to access the local community.

People’s experience of using this service:

The manager and staff told us how important the services' shared values were to them, and how they were passionate about providing outstanding person-centred care to people when they needed it to enable them to remain living in their own homes.

People being supported, and their relatives told us they thought the staff were highly compassionate, caring, flexible and never missed a call. The manager told us they always ensured there was enough time between care calls, so staff could spend quality time with people and were never rushed.

Staff at the service were highly skilled in recognising and acting upon risks to people. People felt safe and the staff who provided their support made them feel secure. Robust safeguarding policies and procedures were in place to ensure people were safe and staff remained skilled.

Staff encouraged people to have an active role in their care. They were supported to complete aspects of their care that were within their abilities. They empowered people to gain their independence and supported them to improve and enjoy their lives.

‘The Club’ was created by the manager so people could maintain their social skills and avoid social isolation after personal care services were no longer required due to successful rehabilitation. ‘The Club’ was available twice a week to people and transport provided to and from their homes to attend meaningful activities.

People’s care and support was thoroughly assessed, and the provision of basic equipment was available by the manager to ensure people’s rehabilitation within their own homes could start without delay. Several relatives told us how their loved ones were successfully rehabilitated and was able to remain living at home.

People's needs and wishes were met by staff who had outstanding skills. Many of the people using the service lived with dementia. The manager had learnt from personal experience how to support people, relative’s and staff impacted by dementia. We were told of many examples of staff going 'above and beyond' to help and support people they cared for. For example, one relative told us how impressed they were with the patience and understanding shown by staff and the manager despite several challenging situations caused by dementia.

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 were recruited wisely and had real empathy for the people they cared for. Relatives constantly told us staff went 'the extra mile'. People told us they felt engaged with the service and knew how to complain if they needed to. However, no complaints had been received since we last inspected the service.

People, relative’s and staff praised the manager and told us they were open, honest, approachable, kind and caring. Staff had bought into their leader’s vision and were supporting excellent provision of care. Audits completed by the manager ensured that all aspects of care were in line with best practice and safe. The provider sought feedback from people and relatives receiving a service using an annual quality assurance survey.

The service was an important part of its community and had developed links to reflect the needs of people. It worked with charities, health and social care professionals and engaged in collaborative research with an aim to develop improved outcomes and experiences for people.

Overall rating at last inspection:

Good (report published 11 October 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information that we receive about the service and will return to inspect as per our re-inspection programme or sooner if we have concerns about the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.