We carried out a review of the data available to us about CHD Care at Home South West Surrey on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about CHD Care at Home South West Surrey, you can give feedback on this service.
CHD Care at Home South West Surrey is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people in their own homes. The agency was supporting 77 people at the time of our inspection, seven of whom were receiving live-in care. Most people using the agency were older people, some of whom were living with dementia. Three people using the agency were younger adults with a learning disability.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received a safe and reliable service from consistent staff. People told us staff understood their needs and preferences about their care.
Risk assessments were carried out to identify and mitigate any potential hazards involved in people’s care. Staff maintained appropriate standards of infection prevention and control (IPC). People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff were recruited safely and understood their roles in protecting people from abuse.
The service was well planned and managed. The registered manager and office team communicated effectively with people, their relatives, staff and professionals. The agency had established effective working relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care. Staff told us they received good support to do their jobs and felt valued for the work they did.
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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 1 August 2019) and there was a breach of Regulation 17 Good governance of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
Why we inspected
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 21 May 2019. A breach of legal requirements was found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve good governance.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from Requires Improvement to Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for CHD Care at Home South West Surrey on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Longdene Homecare Ltd South West Surrey is a domiciliary care agency providing care to people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection, 116 people were receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they did not always receive care at the times they expected to, but this had started to improve by the time of our visit. The provider had started to implement improvements to scheduling and monitoring but this had not yet been consistent enough to ensure the legal requirements were met in this area. There was a new manager in post who was in the process of registering with CQC and they had started to identify and address areas for improvement.
People told us they felt safe with staff and measures were in place to manage risks. We identified some information in medicines records that was missing, but this was addressed by the provider in response to our feedback. The providers auditing and governance systems were not robust enough to ensure all the legal requirements were met, we found gaps in records relating to medicines and staff training.
People spoke positively about the staff who supported them and staff were committed to their roles. Staff said they felt confident with the training and support provided to them. Care was provided in a way that encouraged people to be independent and people said staff were respectful when visiting them in their homes. Staff knew how to respond to suspected abuse and the provider had shared information with the local authority and CQC where concerns had been raised. There was a system to record accidents and incidents.
People’s healthcare needs were planned for and care plans contained sufficient detail for staff to provide personalised care. Where people’s health needs changed, staff contacted healthcare professionals. People had regular reviews to identify any changes in needs and people said they had opportunities to make suggestions about care through surveys. People knew how to complain and complaints had been investigated and responded to appropriately.
Staff felt supported by management and there were systems in place to ensure important information was communicated to staff. Staff had regular one to one supervision meetings and there was an appraisal process in place. We saw evidence of work with other agencies and the provider was in the process of actioning improvements identified by the local authority.
Rating at last inspection: Good (Inspection report published 8 February 2017).
Why we inspected: The inspection was brought forward slightly due to safeguarding concerns shared with CQC by the provider and the local authority in relation to missed care calls and recruitment checks.
Enforcement: Action we told provider to take (refer to end of full report)
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service closely and will return to inspect the service again in line with our policies.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Longdene Homecare Ltd South West Surrey is a domiciliary care agency that provides a range of care support to adults living in their own homes. People who used the service have a range of support needs including physical and sensory impairments, learning disabilities and mental health needs, with the majority of people living with conditions associated with ageing, such as dementia. In addition to providing personal care, the service also assisted people with domestic tasks, such as shopping, housework and meal preparation. At the time of our inspection the service supported 179 people.
The service has 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.
People told us that they felt safe when receiving care. Staff members understood how to safeguard the people whom they supported. Training had been provided to staff members in relation to safeguarding. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to ensure that people’s needs were met and that there was continuity of care in the case of staff absence. The provider had carried out checks to ensure that staff members were of good character and suitable for the work that they were engaged in.
Medicines were well managed by the service. People’s medicines were managed and given to them appropriately. Records of medicines were well maintained.
Arrangements were in place to ensure that risks associated with the provision of care and support were assessed and managed. Risk assessments were linked to management plans, were up to date and reflected people’s current support needs.
Staff received regular training that covered a wide range of topics and met national training standards for staff working in health and social care services. They were able to describe the training that they had received. Training and information had been provided to staff about The Mental Capacity Act (2005), including the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards. Information about people’s capacity to consent was contained within their care plans, and staff were able to describe how they supported people to make decisions and choices about their care.
Arrangements were in place to ensure that staff were provided with regular supervision by a manager. Training was provided that addressed standards for staff working in social care service. Staff members spoke positively about the training and support that they received.
Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported, and people were involved in making decisions about their care. People told us that they thought that staff who worked with them were professional, caring and respectful, and gave examples of how they were supported to maintain independence as much as possible. Staff spoke positively about the work that they did and the people whom they supported.
People told us that they knew how to contact the office and were confident that the provider would deal with complaints appropriately and quickly. People also said that they had received questionnaires or visits from a manager to obtain feedback about the service that they received. We saw that people’s feedback about the service showed high levels of satisfaction with the care and support that they received.
There were effective processes in place to monitor the care and welfare of people and improve the quality of the service. We saw that the service had made positive changes in relation to information that they had obtained from these processes.
During our visit to the Longdene Homecare offices we looked at records which included care files of people who use the service, personnel file of employees and information the provider used to assess and monitor the quality of the service. We spoke with four individuals who use the service on the telephone and visited the homes of three people and spoke with a relative. During the home visits we were able to observe how staff interacted and supported people. We saw staff treat people in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner.
People told us that they were happy with the support they received and that the staff were very good. One person told us that they felt 'safe' and that the staff were 'very kind and caring'. One individual told us that staff treated them with respect. A relative told us staff visit four times a day and that that it had worked out better than they thought it would and they were very happy with the support.
We saw that care plans were person centred and people's care needs were reviewed. We found that Longdene Homecare Ltd had processes in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service.
People using the service or their relatives told us they had had an assessment of their support and care needs before they started receiving support from the service. They said that they felt involved and included about their care and in deciding upon the support they required.
One person told us that they felt the service they received was 'exceptional' whilst another person told us the agency was 'marvellous.' Other comments included the service was 'first class' and '100% fabulous'. People told us that they felt the staff were friendly, reliable, kind, polite and courteous.
One person told us the staff at the office and the arrangements they made about their visits were very good. They said they felt they could always contact the office staff when they needed to.
We found that the service had arrangements in place to protect people from harm and had the required recruitment vetting practices in place to protect people from harm as far as was reasonably practicable.
We found that the service had an effective complaints procedure. People we spoke with told us they had not had any reason to complain but felt their concerns or complaints would be dealt with professionally and promptly.