SeeAbility - Surrey Views

The inspection took place on 6 November 2018 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

A registered manager was not currently in post but one was being trained and registered at the time of the inspection. 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.

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. There were business contingency plans in place in the event of an emergency.

The service was responsive and tailored its care to people's lifestyle choices. Care plans were person centred and people were seen and responded to as individuals. Activity programmes were creative and designed to meet people's individual preferences and choices.

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. Applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe.

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. The home provided bright and spacious accommodation with access to large grounds and outside space. People had been encouraged to choose the décor and were able to personalise their bedrooms.

Staff treated people with kindness and went the extra mile to provide consistency and care for people when they needed to stay at hospital. Staff supported people to make choices about their lives. Staff treated people with respect and upheld their dignity 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. People received a highly personalised service that was responsive to their changing needs. Staff encouraged people to connect with their local community on a daily basis. People had excellent access to educational and leisure opportunities that were bespoke to their preferences and interests.

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. Management 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.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found