We inspected Support and Independence Team Central and Upper Valley 2 on 31July and 1 and 3 August 2017. We gave the provider short notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies to make sure the registered manager can be available.

The last inspection of this service took place in December 2015. The service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ but no breaches of regulation were identified.

The Support and Independence Team Upper Valley 2 is registered with the Care Quality Commission as a domiciliary care agency. However the service differs from other domiciliary care services as it is a short term reablement service which helps people regain their independence following periods of illness or time in hospital. People who use this service are not given specific visit times and the length of stay is dependent on the support they require at each visit. The service, provided by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, works in partnership with the local NHS foundation trust with the office based in Hebden Bridge Health Centre. Referrals to the service are usually from the community, Gateway to Care or following hospital discharge.

At the time of our inspection there were 9 people receiving personal care.

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.

People and relatives we spoke with praised the service provided and the staff. People told us staff were kind and supported them with encouragement and patience.

Medicines management was safe which helped ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Our discussions with staff showed they were committed to supporting people in regaining their independence. Staff were recruited safely and told us their induction and shadowing was comprehensive and prepared them for their roles. We saw staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and said they would not hesitate to report poor practice. People were given information about safeguarding.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.

People’s care records provided detailed information about their needs and focussed on what people could do for themselves as well as the support they needed to meet their goals in regaining their independence.

Risk assessments showed any identified risks had been assessed and mitigated. We saw people had been involved in their support plans. There was full information about people’s needs, lifestyles, preferences and goals.

People were supported to access healthcare and benefited from a multi-disciplinary approach to promote recovery and independence.

People were supported with their nutrition when this was identified as a care need.

People we spoke with raised no concerns but knew the processes to follow if they had any complaints and were confident these would be dealt with.

Systems were in place to audit the quality of the service provided.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the way in which the service was run. They told us communication was very good. They told us about regular checks that were carried out to make sure people were happy with the support they received. The registered manager was actively seeking ways in which the service could develop.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

During our inspection, we spoke with the manager; four support workers, five people who used the service and one relative.

Everyone we spoke with was complimentary about the service and quality of care provided.

One person who used the service told us; “All I know is that they are brilliant and I could not have done what I have without them.” Another person told us; “The Support and Independence Team are brilliant! I am really pleased with every one of them. They are just excellent and always go over and above what they need to do so that I have everything I need.” Everyone told us they knew the care staff and liked seeing “the same friendly faces”.

The four support workers we spoke with told us the Support and Independence Team was a good team to work for and they felt the services provided were good.

There were procedures in place to protect people from abuse.

There were effective systems in place to ensure people who used the service were involved in decision making and to identify any areas for improvement. For example, quality assurance visits were carried out to ensure all required information was present in the people’s homes and any quality issues were identified.

This inspection took place between 11 and 23 December 2015. The inspection was announced. We gave 24 hours’ notice to the provider to make sure people were available in the office to help us.

The Support and Independence Team (Upper valley 2) is a domiciliary care agency and helps people regain their independence following periods of illness or time in hospital. The service's office base is situated at Hebden Bridge Health Centre. Referrals to the service are usually from the community, Gateway to Care or following hospital discharge. At the time of the inspection the service supported 33 people with their needs.

A registered manager was not in place with the previous manager deregistering with the commission in February 2015. 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. A manager had put in an application to become the registered manager in January 2015 however this application had been returned due to being incorrectly filled out. Since then, satisfactory steps had not been taken to ensure a registered manager was in place.

Most people or their relatives assisted them with medicines. However the service did not keep a complete record of medicines in line with good practice guidance and their own policy.

People felt safe using the service and were encouraged to be independent. Staff told us they had a good understanding of how to support people with their independence.

Systems were in place to identify and manage risks within people’s homes but assessments did not contain sufficient detail to safely minimise the risk.

Care plans reflected the care and support people needed to regain their independence. Staff understood the importance of meeting people’s individual needs and provided the care and support they required.

People were very happy with the service and told us they were assisted in ways that suited them.

Staff recruitment procedures were in place and were being followed to ensure only suitable staff were employed by the service. There were appropriate numbers of staff available to provide the care and support each person required.

Staff had received training and demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual choices and needs and how to meet them. Staff understood the importance of treating people with dignity and respect and people confirmed this.

Staff understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and were clear about the process to follow to report concerns. Complaints procedures were in place and people confirmed they would raise any issues they might have with management.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People using the service had capacity to make decisions for themselves and the manager, team leader and staff understood their responsibilities under the MCA.

People received the support they required to meet their nutritional needs. Input from health and social care professionals was accessed as part of the reablement process and systems were in place to respond to people’s healthcare needs.

The team leader was committed to the provision of good quality care to enable people to regain and maintain their independence. The service provided staff with training and support to maintain a high standard of care to people using the service.

Systems were in place to monitor and review the quality assurance in the service. The team leader said they completed visual checks and spoke with people for their feedback.