This inspection took place on 8 November 2016 and was announced. We also contacted parents by email for their views and opinions on the 11 November 2016. We gave the registered provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because it is a community based service and we needed to be sure the office would be staffed and sufficient information would be provided to allow us to contact parents and young people in their homes.

The service was last inspected on 17 February 2014 and was found to be meeting the regulations we inspected against.

KIDS South East is registered to provide short breaks for children and young people with disabilities up to the age of 25. This involves supporting them in activities in their home or within the community and some personal care. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 11 children or young people.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Parents said they were happy with the support their child received and felt it was safe. Staff had up to date training in how to safeguard young people and were confident in their roles. Parents were confident about staff and felt able to discuss anything they wished to. They thought staff were knowledgeable and appropriately skilled.

We found risks associated with children and young people's care needs were assessed. Actions required to mitigate against risks was recorded. We found that risk assessments were updated regularly and this included those risks associated with complex care needs and emergency situations.

Staff recruitment was managed safely with all of the necessary background and employment checks being completed prior to staff members commencing employment.

The provider had ensured that policies, procedures and information in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. This was to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. KIDS South East would not have responsibility for making applications under either of these pieces of legislation; however, they would have responsibility for ensuring that any decision on DoLS and MCA 2005 were complied with.

Parents were responsible for obtaining medicines on behalf of their children. Staff who administered medicines to children or young people had received training and were able to talk us through the administration processes.

Staff had up to date training and were supported in their roles. They received regular supervisions as well as annual appraisals.

The service provided personalised support to children and young people. Support plans were individualised and included information around their preferences, likes and dislikes. We found parents were involved in support planning.

Parents were responsible for their child having access to a range of health and social care professionals when required. We found information had been shared with the provider, including GPs, district nurses, occupational therapists and dentists.

Parents knew how to raise concerns if they were unhappy and were confident their complaints would be investigated and actioned.

The registered provider had quality assurance arrangements in place to regularly assess the quality and safety of the service provided. The results from quality checks were fed into the service’s business plan which was reviewed at management meetings.

KIDS (South East) provides domiciliary care services to children and young people aged between 0 – 19 years with disabilities who live in their own homes. At the time of our visit we were informed that there were 180 families registered with their short break service but not all the families were active. Children’s and young people’s packages were tailored to people’s needs, which varied from providing a sitting service in the child’s home to supporting a young person to participate in community based activities.

During our visit to KIDS (South East) office we looked at records which included care files of people who use the service, personal files of employees and information the provider used to assess and monitor the quality of the service. We visited the homes of two young people and spoke with them and their relatives. Due to the nature of the individual's physical disabilities people's communication skills were limited. We also spoke with three members of staff including the registered manager.

Parents told us that the staff were “top notch” and “brilliant”. One relative told us that they used KIDS short break service once a week and had the same member of staff supporting their child; and that they were “very good – as the staff member steps back and lets their child do as much as they can”. Another relative told us that they had had specific workers who were epilepsy trained to support their child and that staff would monitor them over night and sit and read to them.

We were not able to speak to people using the service because they were not available during our inspection. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by speaking with two staff members and by reviewing care records, staff training records and policies and procedures.

Staff said that as part of their induction, policies such as confidentiality were read along with the company’s ethos values and principles which included treating people with dignity and respect. They were clear that they would be a guest at times in peoples homes and recognised the importance of good information provision and involving people in the decision making process regarding their care.

Care plans were detailed and staff told us they felt they had appropriate and relevant information to deliver the support required to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

We saw that people's privacy and independence were respected, people experienced safe and effective care based on detailed care plans and risk assessments that met individual needs.

People using the service were protected from abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding children.

We saw evidence that staff received ongoing training and supervision which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of people.

The Provider had effective systems in place to monitor quality assurance and compliance.