Arundel Domiciliary Care Services Limited

Updated 26 September 2018

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

This was a comprehensive, announced inspection which took place between 31 May 2018 and 7 June 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the first day of our inspection visit because the locations provide a domiciliary care service for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure they would be in. The inspection team consisted of four inspectors who visited people in four different locations which were staffed by this provider.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection. Due to concerns in relation to a specific event that had occurred at one of the locations, and other issues reported to us in relation to the management of risks, the date of this inspection was brought forward. For this reason, a request for the provider to complete a Provider Information Return was not sent by the Commission. A Provider Information Return is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with three people at one location and completed observations of four other people over three other locations. Some people were unable to communicate with us or would have found it too distressing. We spoke with the nominated individual of the provider, four team leaders, who were responsible for the day-to-day management at each location and four support staff. We spent time observing the care and support people received.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how each location was managed. These included six care plans and people’s risk assessments. We reviewed records relating to medicines, staff training, support and employment records, audits, minutes of meetings, menus, policies and procedures, complaints and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 26 September 2018

Arundel Domiciliary Care Services Limited is registered to provide personal care to people living with a learning disability and other complex needs, including autism and mental health. The service model is based on supported living with people receiving personal care and support from staff employed by the provider. People have their own service user/tenancy agreements. The service supports people across locations in East and West Sussex and Surrey.

At our last inspection in September 2016 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 is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People felt safe and received care and support from staff who understood and managed their risks appropriately. Lessons were learned and improvements made when things went wrong. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and new staff had checks made on their suitability to work in a care setting. Medicines were managed safely. People were encouraged to be independent by participating in housekeeping duties such as laundry or cooking and keeping their rooms clean.

Technology was used to aid people’s communication. Staff completed a range of training to meet people’s care and support needs and attended supervision meetings with their line managers. People had sufficient to eat and drink and were encouraged with healthy diets and lifestyles. They had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services. People had personalised their rooms and had access to communal areas. 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.

People were supported by kind and caring staff and positive relationships had been developed. People were involved in all aspects of their care and were encouraged to make decisions and choices. They were treated with dignity and respect.

Care plans provided detailed information about people and guidance to staff. Positive behaviour support was used by staff to manage or prevent any incidents of challenging behaviour. Communication systems had been developed that were personalised and effective. People’s diverse needs were catered for. People were involved in a range of activities, the majority of which were out in the community. Planners were organised to enable people to choose what they would like to do in line with their interests. Complaints policies were accessible and easy for people to understand.

Staff felt supported by their managers and spoke positively about working for the organisation. They were clear about their roles and responsibilities and feedback from a staff survey was positive. People and relatives were asked for their comments about the service and results were favourable. Audits were effective in monitoring and measuring the service and in driving continuous improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.