The inspection took place on 27 September 2016. This was an announced inspection. We gave the provider 48 hours notice of the inspection as we wanted to ensure key staff were available in the office to meet us. We last inspected the provider on 15 January 2014 when we found the provider was meeting all the areas that we looked at.

Sense - Community Services (South East) provides community and outreach Intervenor service, which supports children and adults who are dual-sensory impaired or sensory impaired with additional physical or learning disabilities. The service also includes providing some personal care support to people in their own homes. The Intervenor service provides one to one support to children and adults born with sight and hearing impairments, known as congenital deafblindness. The role of the Intervenor is to help the deafblind person to interact and communicate with the family and the outside world. The Intervenor service was provided in a combination of places including people’s homes, their local community and in an education setting. People receiving this service lived in a variety of settings, including with families, in an adult placement and in a residential home.

Sense - Community Services (South East) provides this service 52 weeks a year. The location of the service is at Touchbase South East day care service. The provider is Sense, a national charity organisation for people who are deafblind. The term 'deafblind' covers a wide range of people, some of whom may or may not be totally deaf and blind. At the time of the inspection, 15 people were being supported by the Sense - Community Services (South East).

The service had 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.

People using the service and their relatives told us they were very happy with the service and that staff were responsive to their health and care needs. They said staff communicated well and treated them with dignity and respect, and understood their likes, dislikes and preferences.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and abilities, and gave examples of how they supported them. For example, staff used various communication methods such as British sign language, music, light and sports to encourage people to develop their communication skills and gain new experiences. Staff knew the service’s safeguarding procedures and explained how they would protect people from harm and abuse.

People’s care plans were detailed and person-centred. Risk assessments were individualised and gave information on safe management of the risks. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly updated and reviewed. There were clear records of care delivery. The service maintained robust medicines policy and procedures. Staff had a received training on medicines administration and felt confident administering medicines.

The service followed safe recruitment practices and carried out appropriate checks before staff started supporting people. There were sufficient numbers of staff to safely meet people’s needs. Relatives and the health care professional we spoke with told us staff were very well trained and had the right skills to support people with their individual needs.

Staff told us they were very well supported by the registered manager and enjoyed working with the service. Staff received regular supervision sessions. Staff told us they attended a comprehensive induction and received extensive relevant specialist training to support them with their role.

Relatives and the health care professional we spoke with told us the registered manager was approachable, and their concerns were listened to and addressed in a

At the time of our inspection, the provider was providing an “Intervenor” service to 10 people. We spoke with six parents and representatives for people using the service who told us that they were happy with the quality of care. One parent told us, “they’ve got her best interest at heart.” Another parent person described the quality of care as, “really brilliant. All said they had been involved in their child’s or the persons care plan and risk assessment and all confirmed that they had signed these. A parent told us, “they [staff] constantly keep it [care plan] updated.”

People’s needs were assessed and care planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We reviewed care records for five people who used the service. We found that each person had a care plan and risk assessments which had been regularly reviewed.

The provider worked in co-operation with other professionals involved in the care of people. This was confirmed by care plans and notes written by Intervener staff. This helped facilitate communication between different professionals involved in the persons care and to ensure continuity of care.

The provider had the necessary recruitment and selection policies and procedures in place. There were systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service.

At the time of our inspection there were fourteen people using the intervener service. We were not able to speak to people using the service because they had complex needs. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by reviewing their feedback and talking to relatives. Relatives were happy with the service and spoke highly of staff. They spoke of staff as being, “professional and courteous, “extremely good and extremely patient”. This feedback was also reflected in the service user questionnaire, which showed high levels of satisfaction with the service for most people.

Staff were able to give us examples of how they treated people with dignity and respect such as ensuring doors were kept closed when assisting someone in the changing room during swimming sessions and respecting people’s preferences, likes and dislikes.

There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse and that they received the care they needed, including safeguarding and child protection policies and procedures. Systems were in place to monitor and to make improvements to the quality of care and support provided by the agency.

Staff felt supported by the manager and received training relevant to their role as Intervenor. Records relating to people who use the service were stored securely.