This inspection took place on 21 September 2016 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the manager is responsible for other services and is often out of the office. We needed to be sure that they would be available when the inspection took place.

North West Surrey Area Reablement Service is a domiciliary care agency that provides short term care and support to enable people to regain skills after a period of ill health. It is located in Woking and provides support to people within the town and surrounding areas. At the time of our inspection 17 people were using the service.

At our previous inspection of North West Surrey Area Reablement Service which took place on 13 May 2013 we found that the service was meeting the standards that we inspected.

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.

People who used the service spoke positively about the support that was provided to them. The people whom we spoke with told us that care was provided by staff members who were respectful and supportive. People told us that they were fully involved in agreeing their care plans and that these were reviewed with them on a regular basis.

Care records contained detailed information about people’s care needs and how these should be supported. Referrals to other services such as occupational therapy were made where appropriate to ensure that additional supports required by people were put in place. Where people were unable to make progress with their skills recovery, the service liaised with the social services care management team to ensure an effective transition to other care and support services at the end of the reablement period.

Staff members spoke positively and respectfully about their approaches to care, and the people that they provided care to. They recognised the need to work in partnership with people to enable them to regain their independence during the six week package of care.

People were protected from the risk of abuse or other harm. The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential areas of concern in order to ensure that people were safe. Staff members understood how to safeguard the people whom they were supporting.

Staff recruitment processes were in place to ensure that workers employed by the service were suitable for the work that they were undertaking. There were enough staff members in post to ensure that people received the support that they required. Staff members received training that met national standards for staff working in social care organisations. They were further supported through regular supervision sessions with their manager.

People’s religious, cultural and other needs and preferences were supported. The service made efforts to match people with staff members in order to meet any specific needs or requests.

The complaints procedure was provided in an easy to read format. People who used the service knew what to do if they had a concern or complaint.

The service was well managed. People who used the service and staff members spoke positively about its management. A range of processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service, such as audits, spot checks of care practice, and service user satisfaction surveys.

We spoke with two people who used the service. Both people we spoke with were very positive about the service. One person said; “It’s brilliant. The service is very good. They always ask for permission and never force. They ask me for my feedback and call regularly”. The second person we spoke with said; “They are wonderful. Everything is discussed with you. All staff are brilliant, so patient, caring and respectful. They are helping me become more independent. I’m happy with everything”.

We found people’s consent had been obtained prior to any care or treatment being provided. Risk assessments had been carried out for each person and detailed care plans had been put in place to ensure people’s safety and welfare. Staff had undergone appropriate checks prior to being recruited and the service had an up to date statement of purpose available. People, their relatives and staff had been asked for their opinions and feedback and incidents had been notified to the appropriate bodies when required.

We spoke with three people who use the service.

They all told us they felt safe with the staff. They told us they thought the staff were all nice, polite and respectful. They thought all the staff were well trained and always asked them for their opinions and their preferences. They told us there were care plans within their homes which staff always looked at before delivering care.

One person we spoke with told us he thought the staff always seemed rushed although the care they received was very good.

One person we spoke with told us it was very rare for them to see the same staff member twice and that some staff were better than others. They did, however, say the care they received was ‘pretty good’ and that they had no complaints.