East Surrey Reablement Service provides short-term support and personal care to people with the aim of enabling them to live independently in their own homes. The service also supports a hospital discharge assessment programme. The service provides reablement and personal care to older and disabled people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection there were 41 people receiving the service.

At our last inspection in March 2016 we rated the service as good. Since the last inspection the service has matched the area they cover to that of the community health service (Reigate, Redhill, Horley and Tandridge) to facilitate effective joint working with health professionals.

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.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

There were sufficient staff to deliver all the care hours that were commissioned and needed by people. There were safe staff recruitment practices in place. The team was being guided through a time of change in the service, following the strategic decision to integrate reablement with the community healthcare service.

People were kept safe from abuse because there were robust safeguarding procedures in place and staff were aware of potential harm and knew how to report it. The risks to people (and for staff) in the person’s home were identified and recorded at the outset of any care provision. There were plans in place to reduce the risks and staff knew what actions to take. Incidents and accidents in the person’s home were recorded and reviewed, and learning was discussed with staff. Staff also followed safe practice to reduce the spread of infections and kept people’s homes clean.

Where people were assisted to take their medicines, this was being done safely and was closely monitored by managers. Following a medicines error, there had been staff meetings and action to ensure learning on the correct recording and administration procedure had taken place.

Staff received training to administer medicines.

People received an assessment in line with good practice before any service was provided. This was discussed with the person and their family and their support plan included specific goals for recovery or independence that had been agreed with the person themselves. These were kept under review as people improved or if further needs were observed.

Staff had received a good induction and had access to mandatory refresher training as well as a wide range of other more specific and relevant training to be able to carry out their reablement role. Staff were supervised on a regular basis. They felt able to ask for support and advice at any time to meet the needs of people.

The service worked closely with healthcare services which meant that people’s health and rehabilitation needs could be addressed sooner and so that the outcomes for people’s health and well-being were improved. Staff worked together and fed back to their team leader any new concerns about a person that needed to be addressed.

People’s consent was sought, prior to staff providing any support and care. Staff were aware of the responsibilities and worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restri

We conducted an inspection of Reigate and Banstead Reablement Service on 24 March 2016. At our last inspection in February 2014 the service was not meeting one of the regulations looked at in relation to quality monitoring. The provider sent us an action plan which detailed how they would address these concerns. The service provides care and support to people living in their own homes for the purposes of reablement for a period of up to six weeks. There were 71 people using the service when we visited.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Risk assessments and support plans contained clear information for staff. The provider had systems that required records to be reviewed every two weeks and a final review was supposed to be conducted at the end of the six week period by the care worker. However, we found these reviews were not being conducted consistently.

Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. Staff had received safeguarding adults training and were able to explain the possible signs of abuse as well as the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns.

Staff demonstrated knowledge of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records contained evidence of consent forms where people signed to agree to the aims of the care being provided and to their information being shared.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s life histories and current circumstances which had led to them using the service. Care workers supported people to meet their goals in a caring way.

People who used the service and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs were met. Initial assessments were conducted which documented the views of both people and their relatives. Initial assessments were used to formulate care plans which reflected people’s assessed needs.

Recruitment procedures ensured that only staff who were suitable, worked within the service. There was an induction programme for new staff, which prepared them for their role.

Care workers were provided with appropriate training to help them carry out their duties. Care workers received regular supervision and appraisals of their performance. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to maintain a balanced, nutritious diet. People were supported effectively with their health needs, and were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals as appropriate to meet their needs.

People who used the service and staff felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback on the service. They knew how to make complaints and there was a complaints policy and procedure in place.

The organisation had adequate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager reviewed all care records and daily notes completed by care workers at the conclusion of the six week support package. We saw evidence that feedback was obtained from people who used the service in an annual survey and the results of this was positive. Actions plans were formulated as a result of feedback received and these included timescales for implementation of improvements.

We spoke to 5 people who used the service and 2 relatives of people who used the service.

All the people told us staff were on time and would let them know if they were late and communication with the organisation was good, although one person told us they had problems in the past with a breakdown in communication when staff were late.

All the people we spoke to told us staff were professional and promoted their or their relative’s independence. They had no complaints and felt if they had any concerns they would be listened to.

One person who used the service told us the staff treated them in the caring way they would treat people themselves and another told us nothing was too much trouble for the staff.

We saw that before people received any care they were asked for their consent.

We noted that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard and that staff had received appropriate professional development and support.

We found that although the health and safety of people was reviewed and audited and there were some quality assurance tools, these had not been pulled together into an effective quality assurance system. This was because the provider had not included carers and other professionals, had not provided effective analysis and reporting systems for the findings of surveys of the people who used the service, and did not have a formal system to feedback the findings to people who use the service and stakeholders.

We saw that comments and complaints that people made were responded to appropriately.