Surrey Hills Home Help Services Limited

The service is not a specialist service for autistic people or people with a learning disability. However, some people supported by the service had a learning disability. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We identified the service was meeting this guidance.

We identified shortfalls in recruitment and staff development processes. Some staff had not completed essential training, including moving and handling, and required recruitment checks had not always been completed. In addition, concerns about staff performance and conduct had not always been addressed effectively, which created a risk that people may not consistently receive the standard of care they required.

Governance and quality assurance systems were not consistently effective. Audits had not always identified areas for improvement, and where shortfalls were identified, these were not always acted upon in a timely way. The registered manager recognised these weaknesses and had begun to put plans in place prior to our assessment to strengthen oversight and governance arrangements.

Despite these system weaknesses, the registered manager demonstrated strong commitment to delivering person‑centred care, particularly for people living with dementia. They had developed and delivered training for staff, relatives and external professionals to improve understanding of people’s lived experiences and support more tailored care.

Staff and managers actively advocated for people and professionally challenged external health and social care professionals when people did not receive the support they needed. This ensured people received timely care, particularly at points of crisis.

People received compassionate and responsive care at the end of their lives. Staff ensured people were not alone and continued to provide emotional support to relatives following bereavement.

Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and there was a culture of learning from incidents and accidents to reduce the risk of recurrence. Risks were generally managed in practice while still promoting people’s independence where safe. Infection prevention and control practices were followed. However, medicines were not always managed safely, and oversight systems had not consistently identified and addressed these risks.

People’s needs were regularly assessed, and care plans were updated when changes occurred. The provider followed national guidance and recognised tools to monitor people’s health and escalated concerns to external professionals appropriately. Staff understood the importance of consent and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff described positive working relationships and felt able to raise concerns with a supportive and approachable management team. The provider prioritised staff wellbeing and worked in partnership with external agencies to support people to receive coordinated and holistic care.