Care at Home Services (South East) Limited – Eastbourne, Hailsham and the Weald

We undertook this full assessment due to the age of the previous rating for this service. We needed to make sure that people were being supported safely. We did not find any concerns or ongoing risk at this assessment. There was a newly appointed manager at the service who at the time of our assessment had not yet registered. We have therefore referred to them throughout this report as the manager.

Although risks had been identified specific to people and their home environments, there were some assessments missing. A person had a large piece of medical equipment in their home that presented a potential hazard and some people lived with anxiety and depression but these areas although known about, did not have risk assessments in place. The manager took immediate steps to address this issue.

Accidents and incidents had been reported and recorded with any learning shared among staff. Safeguarding issues had been appropriately raised and staff displayed good knowledge about safety. People who lacked capacity to make some decisions were supported in their best interests and this was documented. Staff were recruited safely and received appropriate support and training. Infection control and medicine administration were managed safely. Processes were in place if people’s support needs increased and they needed to move to a residential home or other setting.

People’s support needs were assessed before the service began care calls. Support needs were subject to ongoing reviews. Staff worked well with other professionals, making sure that all needs were met in a timely way. Some people were supported with the nutritional and hydration needs and staff knew the steps to take if they had concerns about people’s weight. Staff knew the importance of gaining consent from people before carrying out any task or activity.

People were supported by a caring and compassionate staff team who knew about the importance of always maintaining people’s dignity. Staff knew people well and people’s likes, dislikes and preferred routines were respected and supported. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible within the confines of their personal safety. People’s immediate needs were met by a responsive staffing team. Staff were supported by the manager and wider management team to achieve a positive work life balance and staff wellbeing was promoted.

Care was person centred. People were supported to achieve goals and attend appointments when required. Communication between the service and people worked well and although people told us they did not receive rotas, they could contact the office at any time and they felt supported. Few complaints had been recorded but those that had, had been dealt with appropriately and in a timely way. People were supported to have the access they needed to any additional professional support and to attend appointments or other events for example, attending church. Care calls accommodated people’s social and professional meetings. People were given the opportunity to make advanced decisions about their future care and this was documented.

Despite the manager being new in post, they had a clear vision about the future of the service putting people’s needs at the centre of their plans. Staff told us that the manager and wider management team were supportive and approachable and that they had opportunities to speak up and raise issues when they needed to. Auditing processes were well established and were overseen by the manager who looked at patterns and trends and ways to improve the service. Staff told us about a diverse staffing team who worked well together within a working culture where diversity was supported and celebrated.